Godless Hollywood? Part II
by Tom Neven on 11/30/2007 at 10:21 AM
There were a lot of great responses to my previous post, Godless Hollywood? and as I re-read it I realize I actually raised two issues: (1) how should Christians in Hollywood behave and (2) what makes a "Christian" movie. Let me tackle the first with this post, and I'll handle the second in an entirely different post.
Some asked, as did I, "How can openly Christian Denzel Washington make films like American Gangster that feature the sex and violence that many decry?" In many ways, the same issues arise in his Oscar-winning performance in Training Day. I haven't seen the former, but I have seen the latter -- and not the edited-for-TV version. In that film, he plays a very bad guy, and it's clear that he's a bad guy. In no way does he glorify the character's actions. It's clear he's a bad guy, and the consequences of his actions are driven home. It seems, from what I've read, that the same is true of American Gangster.
So does participating in a story that drives home a biblical message -- evil might triumph for a time, but good triumphs in the end -- justify the language and violence depicted on the screen? My opinion -- and I stress it's my personal opinion -- is it's up to the actor, just as it's up to the viewer whether to watch it I believe this falls under Christian liberty. If Denzel Washington feels comfortable doing this, I'm not going to question him. My opinion would be different if the film glorified violence, illicit sex and the like. When it's there just to titillate or rub it in our faces, then I believe a Christian has no business being involved on either side of the camera.
Unfortunately, sometimes that's the case. I know a man in Hollywood who is a professing Christian (and I have no reason to doubt his faith) who is involved with shows that feature questionable content and woldviews, including "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" and "That '70s Show." His rationale? Well, it would be worse if I weren't there. Yeah, but if you're there ostensibly to drain the swamp, have you succeeded if the swamp remains but just has a few less alligators in it? He also says that he's the only Christian some of these people will ever know. But what is their understanding of Christianity if they think there is no real cost as to what you will or won't do in the name of Christ? I try very hard not to judge this man, but I have to shake my head when I listen to him.
Finally, let me close with a personal example. I am presently working on a screenplay, and at least one producer is interested in seeing it. It's about Marines. Having been a Marine grunt for seven years, I know how Marines walk, talk and think, and, trust me, if a mortar round lands a hundred feet away, they don't say, "Golly!" I have wrestled with this as I write. I personally don't use the language you can imagine (there was a time when I did), but most Marines do. Will my story be true if I have my characters acting in ways that are not real, using the equivalent of "golly" when I know full well that's not what they would do? My story overall is built around a clear Christian worldview, but it doesn't hesitate to show evil for what it is. It's a struggle.
Thoughts?
1. Patricia said the following at 10:48 AM on Nov 30:
I haven't seen any of these movies, but I am wondering how much of Denzel Washington's role selection is limited by his race. African Americans are often depicted in stereotypical ways in Hollywood. He often is probably type cast in a certain way...
2. Patricia Hampson said the following at 10:52 AM on Nov 30:
I would just add, too, that I am hesitant to criticize someone who appears to be working in a "Godless" field. I think it's better as a rule for Christians to seek engagement with the culture even if they land in uncomfortable situations. I struggle with this myself as I work in a field that has extremely few Christians. I would try to be supportive of Christians in these fields because I am sure they have real struggles with their work.
3. Tom Neven said the following at 10:56 AM on Nov 30:
Patricia
In Denzel's case, I don't think he's often typecast. Look up his profile on IMDB. The vast majority of his roles did not require the character to be a black man. He was cast because he's a good actor.
Of course, if the role specifically calls for a black man, he is one of several who could be chosen, just as if a role calls specifically for an Italian-American, one would automatically think of Robert DeNiro or Al Pacino.
4. Laura said the following at 10:58 AM on Nov 30:
Tom, first: thank you for your courage to stand where you are, and for your transparency in this forum.
Second, I used to have a pretty major issue with depictions of ungodly behavior, so I'm sympathetic to the folks who will probably comment to tell you that not letting any unwholesome talk come out of your mouth means you can't write a screenplay with "swears" in it.
But here's my two cents: a screenplay that's full of Marines saying, "gosh darnit" and "jerk-face" would a} never get made, b) cause its author to lose credibility, and c) misrepresent the truth, however unseemly. As long as you're presenting their colorful language as fact, plain and un-commented-upon, rather than making light of foul talk or coarse jesting to get a laugh, I think you ought to depict characters with as much verisimilitude as your conscience allows.
5. Justin said the following at 11:13 AM on Nov 30:
I think you should probably include the language. Flannery O'Connor would often use profanity, and that contributed greatly to the believability and overall significance of her stories (try re-imagining "The Artificial N----r" as "The Artificial African-American." Sure, she would have avoided an incredibly offensive word, but in so doing she wouldn't have had the same sort of message decrying the evils of racism). So even if the profanity is gratuitous from the character's perspective, including those words isn't necessarily gratuitous on your part as the writer. If the story points to Christ, I see no reason to think that having characters that cuss will affect this.
N.B. It's not clear to me that cussing is generally wrong, so that certainly affects my perspective on this.
6. nikki said the following at 11:29 AM on Nov 30:
I think I agree with what you are saying, Tom, but what about the whole "family friendly" idea? If it's reality, why do parents try and discourage their kids (I guess I'm thinking of teens who more or less make their own decisions about movies) from seeing movies containing vulgarities? FotF's Plugged In Online (which I frequently use to help me decide whether to see a show) usually gives "thumbs-downs" at coarse language and I can't think of any instance where "gratuitous" language was differentiated from "necessary, real-life" language. Does it really matter? I am just new to this whole issue and would love to hear your thoughts on this, and - Tom, thank you Tom for thinking and blogging about this!
7. Tami said the following at 11:33 AM on Nov 30:
Ah, the ol' cussin' debate.
It bothers me when it's simply spoken (or written) for effect -- to get a rise out of people. (Especially when Christians swear just to prove how non-prude they are.) But if someone drives a nail into their thumb, or is being shot at, I am hardly going to say, "tsk tsk tsk, don't cuss." That's actually kind of cold, when you think about it (what's more important... a "swear word," or the person's injury?).
That said, *in general*, push comes to shove, what's in your heart comes out your mouth.
And war is terrifying and gutwrenching. Visceral reactions -- including verbal reactions -- will reflect that reality.
Flannery O'Connor is an excellent example of someone whose writing pulls no punches -- done with the intent of forcing people to look at reality. She didn't write that way to make titillating bestsellers; she did it to reveal truth. Truths that were REALLY ugly.
8. Will said the following at 11:41 AM on Nov 30:
For an interview with the person from Buffy and That 70s Show visit St. Anne's Pub.
9. Louise said the following at 11:45 AM on Nov 30:
I remember "Beverly Hills Cop" with Eddie Murphy released in the mid 80s.
One of the first scenes depicted Murphy's character in the police locker room, with the chief yelling at him.
Every other word began with "F".
I know that is how people talk, but IMO it was overkill.
The scene would been just as valid if the chief had begun his tirade by yelling "What the ---- are you doing", then maybe repeated the word once more during the scene.
10. Jordan Peacock said the following at 11:50 AM on Nov 30:
My 2c
Good writing maintains the illusion of immersion. 'Golly' in a Marine story, unless it's by one character for whom his lack of profanity in a situation filled with it is a characterization tool (like with Omar in the TV show The Wire), would be more disruptive to the story than beneficial.
11. Phil Craig said the following at 11:58 AM on Nov 30:
Hi all,
In the Bible there are countless stories of pretty awful things. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the language recorded in the original Greek and Hebrew was pretty close to the four-letter words that make us flinch. But we don't say this is a bad thing, because we know that we learn things from them.
Bad things happen, but we can learn from them. A film like Doom is nonsense. A film like American Gangster or The Departed or whatever tells a story about people who exist: there are always things you can learn from true stories, and is there anything gained by softening the truth? I doubt it.
As for the overkill in Beverly Hills Cop, the language was used by the character: he would come across very differently if he hadn't used language in the same way. That justifies it in my opinion.
(I am interested to know why people think 'bad language' is 'bad' at all...but that's probably getting off topic)
12. Tom Neven said the following at 12:27 PM on Nov 30:
Nikki
Actually, Plugged In never gives a thumbs-up or thumbs-down, nor does it give one-star of four-star reviews. (I was formerly a Plugged In reviewer.) They simply lay out the content and let the reader decide.
This is a deliberate decision. They're been asked many times to institute some sort of thumbs-up rating, but they refuse because too many people will simply use that as a shortcut and not actually read the review and interact with it.
I think that's a wise decision.
13. John said the following at 12:36 PM on Nov 30:
I'm not sure where I stand on this, but a much wiser man then I said the following:
http://www.touchet1611.org/TozerReligiousMovie.html
14. Kelly K said the following at 12:37 PM on Nov 30:
Thanks for bringing up this topic, Tom. As a Christian actress, I've dealt with this issue a lot.
I'm always troubled by movies and tv shows that have a lot of junk in them. It makes it that much easier for people to stumble with those kind of thoughts and images in their heads, and it's just not honoring to God.
As far as depicting the truth goes, those in this business, Christian and nonChristian, use artistic license to portray things as they want and not always how they really are. And that's okay because it's entertainment, it's art. Most of my favorite movies are from the 30s, 40s, and 50s. They're clean, but they're also really high quality. Even the military movies back then didn't have cussing or things like that, but they're still great movies that are respected in the industry.
I'm always relieved to see a role I'm after doesn't have things that go against my convictions. It's just one less battle I have to fight and I appreciate it. I can't compromise because God is the One who has called me to this field. I take comfort and courage in the fact that if He wants me here, He won't have me compromise to succeed - He'll make a way for me to do work that is high quality and has high integrity. Just like God allowed those in power to find favor with people like Joseph and Daniel, He can do the same for us. He's already done it for me many times, and I'm grateful for that. It's exciting to step out in faith and see God work miracles.
Thanks for struggling with this issue, Tom, and for seeking God. I know he'll lead you to what He wants you to do. I'll be praying for you and for those who'll read your screenplay!
"Now to Him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to His power that is at work within us, to Him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever and ever! Amen."
- Ephesians 3:20-21
15. Ted Slater said the following at 1:21 PM on Nov 30:
Anyone remember the TV show "Sue Thomas: F.B.Eye"? It was about a deaf woman's involvement on an FBI team. Lots of drama, great scripts and dialog ... and nothing questionable either verbally or visually.
I remember one scene where Sue Thomas was spying on some bad characters, reading their lips from a distance, and rather than airing the bad guys' vulgarities, Sue merely mentioned that they were saying some vulgarities. Clever way for the producers to get the point across without offending sensitive ears.
It may be appropriate to include vulgar language in order to increase the effectiveness of a story. But in most cases, I'm confident that the language could be toned down, the visuals could be more innocent, and the story's impact would not be affected.
Perhaps our hearts have just grown callous to the shock of sinful communication.
16. Ted Slater said the following at 1:37 PM on Nov 30:
John -- that's a fascinating article. We would be wise to consider many of the things the author writes without too quickly dismissing them.
That said, I'm not sure I agree with it. The author includes the following sentence: "Surely it requires no genius to see that the Bible rules out pictures and dramatics as media for bringing faith and life to the human soul."
The thing is, the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. He was no longer merely word, but something we could see and touch. Surely part of his communication included body language.
And didn't God Himself provide Peter a type of movie show in Acts 10:9-16, where He portrayed a variety of animals on a silver screen, the soundtrack including the bloody command to "Rise, Peter; kill and eat."
Entertainment -- even the mere medium -- can have detrimental effects. We may be exposing ourselves too quickly and easily to too much entertainment. But the medium itself is not ungodly. In my opinion.
Great points to wrestle with, John!
17. Tami said the following at 1:43 PM on Nov 30:
To add to what I already said (prompted by Ted's comment): most of the time you can avoid using foul language altogether. There are ways to write and say things -- even in dialogue -- that forcefully express a point without resorting to "those words."
By doing this, the lack of vulgarity is noticable... but not phony sounding as it would be if you substituted "drat," "fudge," etc.
18. Leah T said the following at 2:00 PM on Nov 30:
I'm a Christian filmmaker just sort of getting my feet wet in the Hollywood game. I tend to think that glorifying drugs, sex, violence, etc. isn't the same as simply showing them. There's a point where what is being shown is gratuitous, and then there's a point where viewers look at the characters and think, "that's not even close to being realistic." What I've tried to look for is that ballence point between the two.
It's not really an easy thing to find, and ultimately, I think it's up to the conscience of the person/people involved. If Denzel's conscience doesn't bother him because of portrayals of characters he's played, I don't necessarily think that means he's not a Christian. I'd give him enough credit to trust that he had his reasons for playing guys like Frank, and for playing them the way he's played them.
19. John said the following at 5:26 PM on Nov 30:
Ted,
Yeah, like I said, I'm not sure where I stand, I just remember coming across Tozer's writing and thinking it was pretty strong and related to this topic.
It made me think about the medium and how affective can it really be.
I think there is something to the fact that our culture is so engrossed with visuals and rarely pick up a book.
I also think the Word becoming flesh is different then seeing a movie.
Also, as with a lot of what is presented in the bible, certain events are for specific situations. Just because they happened doesn't mean that the bible is saying that that's what we should do or it's alright for others to do. (Especially if it was God who did it)
I'm not convinced that the medium is bad, but I do not think that a movie is going to have the deep effect that is necessary for salvation.
Perhaps it can plant a seed or can be/is a part of the greater context of interactions a lost person needs before their heart is ready for convertion.
I don't know. I love all kinds of different movies. I can't wait to buy a HDTV so I can enjoy movies AND football games like never before!
20. Rebecca said the following at 6:20 PM on Nov 30:
Questions about showing the realities of sin are always interesting. My parents were a wonderful help to me in this. While trying to shelter my sisters and me from gratuitous displays of immorality, they did not hesitate to let us see the fruits of sin. We interacted with homeless families in shelters, saw the squalor of single-parent homes of promiscuous women, and played with children who had no parents because violence, drugs or alcohol (or some combination) took them away. Let me tell you, I never had the desire to be promiscuous or use drugs!
When you are bringing these evidences to the big screen you are moving into the realm of entertainment and that changes the situation a little. Personally, I like action movies where there are big explosions, tension and heroic actions. I also love dramas that unfold through a few lingering conversations. What I want more than anything, though, is veracity and consistency. The people have to be real, the situations authentic and the outcome in sync with life. That is often ugly and painful.
I, as a 29-yr-old discerning woman, often choose to see movies that I would not take children to, nor recommend to others who I know find anything but the most wholesome fare offensive. But we don't read the same books, or listen to the same music, have the same friends, or even live in the same social situations. There are many things we don't share besides taste in movies.
I agree with Tom. Movies fall in the realm of Christian liberty. For me, truth fully expressed is more powerful than any form of "goodness" or moralistic teaching. This is true regardless of the medium. My current favorite movie is "To End All Wars." It is not pretty, but I find it intensely moving and very true to life. A close second: "Chariots of Fire." But, I also like Disney's "Sleeping Beauty" ;-)
As Christians we are required to pursue excellence in our service to God and Christlikeness in our lives. Honestly, I don't think anyone can judge what those are supposed to look like in the lives of others. If you have Biblical truth flowing into your life, accountability and a sensitive conscience you have the most important safe-guards and your responsibility is to pursue your calling with excellence, whatever medium or situation you work in.
21. BDB said the following at 8:58 PM on Nov 30:
One of the things I noticed working in the cable industry is that there is vastly more money to be made in G and PG-rated programming, compared to R or worse.
So, one way to apply this is to aim your screenplay for a PG-13, which automatically limits how much bad language you put in, right? Just the same as Star Wars or Lord of the Rings had to limit the gore shown in violent scenes. We still knew people (and creatures?) were dying violent deaths, but it wasn't a gorefest.
Ok, so when you pitch the screenplay you're appealing to another vice (greed), but it makes sense.
Easier for a cable network to pick up the script that way, too. After the writer's strike is over, of course.
22. Jo said the following at 2:10 AM on Dec 1:
Tom, I appreciate this discussion. For my part, I know that there are times in film/music/TV when I find bad language unnecessary and annoying (I don't tend to find it offensive, but that's just me), and there are times when I feel it's truthful or powerful in the context. But, because I am comfortable *seeing* the latter, does it follow that I should be comfortable *writing* it? Is that the same issue, or is it a different one? I'd say it's related, but different.
When I watch a film I have to think only about how it's affecting *me*. We all have different sensitivities, and if I'm aware of my sensitivities, I can decide what I will watch and what I won't. If your screenplay was made into a film, *my* decision whether to see it or not would be affected by the level of violence, not the use of swearwords.
When I *write* however, I have to think about the sensitivities of my audience. That is especially important if my audience knows I'm a Christian, because they might assume that what I write will be 'safe' (this is foolish, but it does happen). That doesn't mean I should take out everything which could be difficult for someone to handle - if everybody did that we would lose some very powerful books, films and music. But I think when we write we need to think about the audience and do our best not to write anything unnecessarily that could be a stumbling block to someone else.
I personally would do what Tami says, and try to avoid bad language altogether. If I didn't feel it was possible to do that and still be authentic, then I would use it prayerfully and sparingly. Violence and sex are a little different because some stories need them, but the audience doesn't necessarily need to see much or read too much detail. Swearing is more direct; if it's there, it's there. But in my opinion, if as a writer you're faced with a choice to make an unrealistic, tame film with nothing objectionable, or a powerful, thought provoking film with a few swear words or moderate violence, I'd go for the latter every single time. As someone said in the first hollywood thread, some people - and some subjects - just aren't rated G.
23. Charles H. said the following at 8:55 AM on Dec 1:
Going back to the original screenplay question, the trick is finding a way to convey the message without the vulgarity, as Ted pointed out.
My favorite example was in the original Manchurian Candidate, when the producer needed to convey the idea of an intimate relationship between two characters. Instead of showing the character without her clothes, he showed the clothes without the character -- and the point was quite clear.
24. Justice said the following at 10:30 AM on Dec 1:
"To End All Wars" was made by a Christian and there are a few swear words in it. I believe that if the story is good enough, people are going to remember the story and not the few swear words
25. Deferio said the following at 12:45 PM on Dec 1:
It seems that those that are telling us to "get off Denzel's Back" about the sinfulness of his movies are trying to see how worldy they can get and still consider themselves Christians. Ray comfort brings up and interesting point here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEsUAXYVWSs
and for a real dose of reality Paul Washer has great points here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuabITeO4l8
at the end of the original thread a nurse(my Mom is a nurse in ICU as well) said for us basically getover it...it's reality..."
"Grow up"
My question is, grow up in what? Holiness and sensetivity to the glorification of sin or callousness and insensetivity to the Spirit?
if you would answer to the side of the world cause you are worried about being a "legalist" or a "prude" then you really do need to
"GROW UP"
26. Gene said the following at 1:32 PM on Dec 1:
I used to really respect A.W. Tozer until I read that linked essay. It is so full of bad thinking I hardly know where to begin, but for starters look up these logical fallacies: begging the question and argument from silence.
Yeah, the guy really loves and respects Scripture, as do I, but he really needs to develop better reasoning skills (cf Isaiah 1:18).
27. John said the following at 8:39 PM on Dec 2:
Denzel Washington a Christian? I don't know about that.
Why do you have to cuss or show "reality" in movies?
Is not one of the reasons to watch movies to "escape" reality?
There are countless movies that portray righteousness that use ner a cuss word.
For example, I know they're fantasy, but Lord of the Rings and Star Wars.
Spider-Man comes to mind, too. Does anyone really think that a super-hero would not be cussing like everyday? Come on.
28. Mike Theemling said the following at 9:51 PM on Dec 2:
Interesting discussion.
I tend to believe that there is a distinct difference between portraying sex/violence/language and glorifying it. And that although it should not be the litmus test of whether to see/recommend a movie, it is probably the largest factor for myself.
For example, Saving Private Ryan did not mince on violence and language, yet is an excellent movie. The story was relatively accurate, and the "message" (mainly revolving around self-sacrifice and battling a terrible evil) was a noble one.
Compare this to another violent movie like Kill Bill. It too has loads of violence and language, but the "message" is pretty unwholesome: Revenge at any cost is justified and it's OK to take it into your own hands.
I haven't seen American Gangster and I still may. But what would really interest me is how it portrays the sex and violence. Is the message, "Look at the sweet life being a drug tycoon can bring" or "We should feel sorry for this guy who is just trying to earn a good life for him and his family (at the expense of thousands of ruined lives of course)" or "Evildoers will face justice even if it seems like bittersweet justice"? A lot on if I would recommend this movie hinges upon answering questions like these.
I look at Denzel's acting history and for the most part, do not see him accepting roles where the movie overglorifies negative behaviors. Quite the contrary, many of his movies have a premise for standing up for doing the right thing (Remember the Titans, Courage Under Fire, The Hurricane, etc.) Therefore, I would be hesitant to say that his words regarding his faith are insincere.
Finally, although I firmly believe in discretion and that not all things should be viewed by all parties, I don't think it's fair to say that Christians should automatically exclude a film (or other work of art) simply because it has a sex scene, vulgarity, or violence in there. Even the Bible itself has some pretty graphic depictions (including rapes and bloody executions).
For Tom, I would say that it would be better to leave the "genuine" language of Marines in your screenplay. Part of making a successful film is making it look real and credible. Having a marine who almost got killed by a mortar saying "Golly!" sounds tacky and will only detract from the film's intended message. But that doesn't mean it needs to be over the top and include swear words or sex scenes in there just to attract an audience.
29. Paul said the following at 7:32 AM on Dec 3:
I just have one comment about Denzel... one of his early roles was as a doctor on St. Elsewhere, where he played a pro-abortion physician. He was played up as the "cool" doctor, while the pro-life physicians were seen as stiff and unyielding.
I've never really respected him as a "Christian" actor since. I'm not doubting his relationship with Christ (that's up to him and God), but I really don't think that he's been witnessing well.
My best friend is a up-and-coming Christian actor, and he says that his goal is to make films that he could take Jesus to without having to cover His eyes. I think that should be every Christian's goal in Hollywood.
Just my $0.02
30. Mollie said the following at 9:57 AM on Dec 3:
What about Denzel's other roles? Plus, you don't hear about his personal life. What about all the other pastors who are preaching the word and then you hear about their secret lives? Denzel's a public figure who probably would rather not have his private life told to everyone. I know he's involved in his church and I heard him in the Bible Experience. I think he's doing a fine job.
31. Tehilah said the following at 1:06 AM on Dec 4:
I remember a major turning point in my attitude towards TV and Movies (especially violent ones)...
I woke from a bad dream. In the dream I was watching a script unfold before me. Just like in a movie, there was erratic music and a sense of prescience or dread. Someone was about to be killed before my eyes (actually slightly off screen to the right). The tension escalated until I could hardly stand it.
The tension eased and I knew the person was killed.
And I woke up.
What bothered me was not that I had just witnessed violence (this is nothing new to anyone who watches TV or movies) but that I had stood by and not done anything.
I was so disturbed I went before the Lord and confessed my lack of care.
My point is this - I don't care what arguments we have about good or evil depicted in movies. As viewers, we are not participating, we are standing by.
It may be acted on a screen, but in our heart, we are still standing by.
I still love movies - I watch movies where adults step in to care for children, I watch movies where tenderness overcomes pain. I watch movies that show me God's love, expressed through people.
And I find my heart is softer now, and my compassion is reignited for the man on the street. I am also less cynical about justice and equity.
Philippians 4:8 is my goal. Movies are rarely true, they are often ignoble, they are sometimes just, they are sometimes lovely, they are not often commendable, they are rarely excellent or worthy of praise. Therefore I will do my best not to fill my mind with them.
32. Oxanna said the following at 1:04 AM on Dec 5:
Language is a toughie. I think it's up to the individual in question as to whether to include it in a story. Still, there's a limit. Some of Tom Clancy's books are over the top. It's the flavor concept. You don't write out a Southern man's drawl phonetically. (OK, some people do. I've read books where "Are y'all comin' dowun to tha dahnin' ram nahw?" peppers the pages.) You give enough for the flavor of his speech, and the reader fills in the blanks. Same thing with filthy language, I tend to think. And it also depends on your audience.
On the flip side, take a look at classic films. Hollywood's "Golden Age" had a content code imposed upon it, and yet it still came out with some of the best films.