Movies subverting worldviews?

[A Cup of No]

This is kind of weird, and you all are probably going to think I'm weirder now than you thought I was before (Is it possible?!). Anyway. I was watching "Pirates of the Caribbean" and I was thinking (Happens about twice a month) about how twisted that movie is. During the entire movie (which I happen to love), we are cheering and rooting for a murderer, a thief, probably a womanizer and all around ungodly guy. Now, I know obviously no one is perfect and no movie is going to depict godly people. Life is much more complex than that.

But the reason that the movie was chosen for the field trip I was on was because it had nothing "bad" in it. Really? How is it that the movie has made us end up cheering for something, that if we saw outside of the movies, would appall us? And why am I cheering for Jack Sparrow?

[Darth Executor]

I wasn't cheering for Jack Sparrow (though he was the lesser of two evils and a darn funny character), I was cheering for that metrosexual kid.

[A Cup of No]

:rofl:

[Larry Ancil]

This is kind of weird, and you all are probably going to think I'm weirder now than you thought I was before (Is it possible?!). Anyway. I was watching "Pirates of the Caribbean" and I was thinking (Happens about twice a month) about how twisted that movie is. During the entire movie (which I happen to love), we are cheering and rooting for a murderer, a thief, probably a womanizer and all around ungodly guy. Now, I know obviously no one is perfect and no movie is going to depict godly people. Life is much more complex than that.

But the reason that the movie was chosen for the field trip I was on was because it had nothing "bad" in it. Really? How is it that the movie has made us end up cheering for something, that if we saw outside of the movies, would appall us? And why am I cheering for Jack Sparrow?

Man, I think its great that you are paying attention to what you are watching. I haven't seen it, so I can't comment on the film directly. That aside, I think you are right. Whether overtly intentional, purely incidental, or somwhere in between, much of our media does subvert our worldview. GIGO, garbage in, garbage out. You do well to guard your eyes (and much else with this).

There is a growing stream of mormon films. I usually enjoy these and they do tend to be more clean than your typical film (I can't anything objectionable). The last one I saw was Mobsters and Mormons (I think), and the one prior was Baptists at our Barbeque. The films don't push Mormonism. I'd recommend the BBQ for a youth film if you were looking for something clean. It also makes for a good discussion about different churches.

[kaine diatheke]

This is kind of weird, and you all are probably going to think I'm weirder now than you thought I was before (Is it possible?!). Anyway. I was watching "Pirates of the Caribbean" and I was thinking (Happens about twice a month) about how twisted that movie is. During the entire movie (which I happen to love), we are cheering and rooting for a murderer, a thief, probably a womanizer and all around ungodly guy. Now, I know obviously no one is perfect and no movie is going to depict godly people. Life is much more complex than that.

But the reason that the movie was chosen for the field trip I was on was because it had nothing "bad" in it. Really? How is it that the movie has made us end up cheering for something, that if we saw outside of the movies, would appall us? And why am I cheering for Jack Sparrow?

Thank you for saying what I've been thinking for a long time. I hate to say it, but I don't know if I'll be visiting the movies for a long time. Dancing and gambling are next on my list (I'm just kidding).

Kaine Diatheke

[kaine diatheke]

Thank you for saying what I've been thinking for a long time. I hate to say it, but I don't know if I'll be visiting the movies for a long time. Dancing and gambling are next on my list (I'm just kidding).

Kaine Diatheke

Of course, I just realized that I route for the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. Oops. LOL.

[NickyChris3]

This is kind of weird, and you all are probably going to think I'm weirder now than you thought I was before (Is it possible?!). Anyway. I was watching "Pirates of the Caribbean" and I was thinking (Happens about twice a month) about how twisted that movie is. During the entire movie (which I happen to love), we are cheering and rooting for a murderer, a thief, probably a womanizer and all around ungodly guy. Now, I know obviously no one is perfect and no movie is going to depict godly people. Life is much more complex than that.

But the reason that the movie was chosen for the field trip I was on was because it had nothing "bad" in it. Really? How is it that the movie has made us end up cheering for something, that if we saw outside of the movies, would appall us? And why am I cheering for Jack Sparrow?
Wow... you're right. O_o and it got even worse with Pirates of the Carribean 2: Dead Man's Chest. Maybe I won't let my kids watch it when I grow up.

[A Cup of No]

lol I just realized people responded to this.

Yeah, I wonder if it's wrong to enjoy the films. I mean, for most plot lines to work, almost everyone is doing some sort of sin. If pushed to the limits, this would ban most movies and/or novels, and I don't want to go that far.

It was just an observation.

And yes, I did see Dead Man's Chest.

[djdavo]

i think as long as you realize you wouldn't cheer for this guy in real life it's OK...in moderation.

for example: christians HATE harry potter, even though they take place in a fictional world where there's 'muggles' and people with magical gifts.

christians LOVE the lion the witch and the wardrove because it's set in a fictional work where there's magical gifts...and father christmas..and....

heheheh...

maybe a better example is christians see nothing wrong with watching the wizard of oz, which has witches in it ...even a GOOD witch!


everything is permissable,but not all things are profitable. i think people know well enough when they've 'crossed the line' and offended their conscience and God. it's staying sensitive to that that is the hard part :)

[BronzeArcher]

Yeah, I wonder if it's wrong to enjoy the films. I mean, for most plot lines to work, almost everyone is doing some sort of sin. If pushed to the limits, this would ban most movies and/or novels, and I don't want to go that far.

Hey Rob, good to see you...

Interesting question with interesting tacks. MacArthur has some principles (I'm not a fan, but I have some random sermons from him), in a sermon called "What to Do in the Gray Areas":

- Will it benefit me spiritually? (personal edification)
- Will it bring bondage? (habit forming)
- Will it defile God's temple?
- Will it cause anyone to stumble? (effects on other Christians)
- Will it further the cause of evangelism?
- Will it violate my conscience?
- Will it bring glory to God?

He does not exegete here, and I think his bit on 'conscience' is anachronistic ('conscience' should rather be 'what the group values'). Stumbling block should be translated 'gross offense,' too (from Witherington; I'll get the citation if you'd like).

Aside from that, they're worth thinking about. Glory to God is naturally a more complex question... but I have no positive/negative thoughts to offer because I'm reading. :teeth:

[SinikalSaint]

I always figured films (or TV shows, comics, novels, short stories, etc.) with protagonists like Jack Sparrow (anti-heroes) are usually about long journeys toward redemption. In Dead Man's Chest as well as the first PotC, we see Jack Sparrow, despite being a pirate, is capable of goodness--I'd even go so far as to use the word righteousness. I'm not saying a film franchise based on a Disneyland ride is all that thematically deep (although, I'm not saying it's not, either), but having a scoundrel for a hero is nothing new, and nothing necessarily bad, depending on how it's done. Any Star Wars fans, here? Han Solo wasn't exactly saintly (to the point where Greedo shooting first is nothing short of a travesty to Cpt. Solo's character), he ultimately was a hero, almost dying for Luke, Leia and co. Anyone here familiar with the Man With No Name film trilogy of spaghetti Westerns by Sergio Leone? Clint Eastwood's nameless, ponchoed, wandering gunslinger is usually considered something of a ruthless anti-hero who'd kill you as soon as look at you; yet, in the third and most epic of the trilogy, The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, he's the one called "The Good," and there's a school of thought floating about that his character represent Christ; Lee Van Cleef's villainous Angel Eyes character, "the Bad," represents the Devil; and petty criminal Tuco, "the Ugly," represents fallen man. I dont know if that was Mr. Leone's intention, but it works.

I'll also note, for those familiar with Flannery O'Connor's stories, the Misfit in "A Good Man is Hard to Find." The Misfit was an escaped serial killer, and yet was the bearer of grace in the story, the spiritual and moral center who pretty blatantly says that it's the resurrection of Christ is what provides meaning for being righteous.

So don't be too dismayed about heroes who aren't necessarily all that heroic. Look more at the character's complexity and the nature of the story before you assume your adherence to righteousness is being subvertively undermined.

[Gabby]

I always figured films (or TV shows, comics, novels, short stories, etc.) with protagonists like Jack Sparrow (anti-heroes) are usually about long journeys toward redemption. In Dead Man's Chest as well as the first PotC, we see Jack Sparrow, despite being a pirate, is capable of goodness--I'd even go so far as to use the word righteousness. I'm not saying a film franchise based on a Disneyland ride is all that thematically deep (although, I'm not saying it's not, either), but having a scoundrel for a hero is nothing new, and nothing necessarily bad, depending on how it's done. Any Star Wars fans, here? Han Solo wasn't exactly saintly (to the point where Greedo shooting first is nothing short of a travesty to Cpt. Solo's character), he ultimately was a hero, almost dying for Luke, Leia and co. Anyone here familiar with the Man With No Name film trilogy of spaghetti Westerns by Sergio Leone? Clint Eastwood's nameless, ponchoed, wandering gunslinger is usually considered something of a ruthless anti-hero who'd kill you as soon as look at you; yet, in the third and most epic of the trilogy, The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, he's the one called "The Good," and there's a school of thought floating about that his character represent Christ; Lee Van Cleef's villainous Angel Eyes character, "the Bad," represents the Devil; and petty criminal Tuco, "the Ugly," represents fallen man. I dont know if that was Mr. Leone's intention, but it works.

I'll also note, for those familiar with Flannery O'Connor's stories, the Misfit in "A Good Man is Hard to Find." The Misfit was an escaped serial killer, and yet was the bearer of grace in the story, the spiritual and moral center who pretty blatantly says that it's the resurrection of Christ is what provides meaning for being righteous.

So don't be too dismayed about heroes who aren't necessarily all that heroic. Look more at the character's complexity and the nature of the story before you assume your adherence to righteousness is being subvertively undermined.


This all reminds me of the movie Les Miserables. Great movie!

[djdavo]

[QUOTE=SinikalSaint] Han Solo wasn't exactly saintly (to the point where Greedo shooting first is nothing short of a travesty to Cpt. Solo's character),
QUOTE]

preach it! shame on you george lucas...

funny, i thought of han solo as well when iread this...

[kneel2hymn]

Just a couple of quick thoughts here. One is that the idea of cheering for a heroe either fictional or not who is less than pure is not a theme new to modern movies. When you read the account of Moses and the plagues who do you cheer? Moses? But he was a murderer. Do you wait with baited breath to see if David will escape Saul? He lied in order to try and hide his affair and then when that didn't work he had the man killed and stole his wife.

Even within God's own word we find that the best heroes are often those who wouldn't make the grade under the law. The only exception was Jesus and even he chose some serious sinners to become the "heroes of the faith". Paul was a murderer, Matthew a tax collector (today we would charge him with fraud and imbezzlement) the list goes on here too.

Secondly, your rightousness can not be subverted by anything unless it is based on you and your works. (In which case you are in trouble already since none of us is rightous in our own right.) Just like Abraham we are rightous by faith not works so unless the movie somehow affected your faith in Jesus then your rightousness has not been affected. Unless of course you were suddenly going to go become a maruading pirate.

[Thankful1]

It has gotten to the point that it's hard to find anything on tv that is non-offensive in some way. If I were honest with myself and I really thought hard about what I was watching, I would stop justifying and watch a lot less than I am now.. Todays sit-coms while very funny in some ways, are pushing (or should I say overfilling) the envelope and normalizing all sorts of hedonistic, immoral practices. Which unfortunately is a reflection of our current culture. As was mentioned previously in this thread..Garbage in=Garbage out.

[Turgonian]

Not necessarily. You're not a machine which merely spews out what's been put into it. We have the duty to think critically about what we see and hear. I'm with SinikalSaint.

BronzeArcher, you were kidding about 'what the group values', right?

Personally, I thought that Dead Man's Chest was more intriguing than The Curse of the Black Pearl, because of those religious elements they put into the second part -- 'We've got to take care of our immortal souls', as the funny one with the glass eye says, and the man clutching the Cross, defying Davy Jones (even though he's weak and trembling all over) and saying, 'I'll take my chances in the afterlife'. That was one of the highlights of the movie for me.

[Smokering]

Not necessarily. You're not a machine which merely spews out what's been put into it. We have the duty to think critically about what we see and hear. I'm with SinikalSaint.

BronzeArcher, you were kidding about 'what the group values', right?

Personally, I thought that Dead Man's Chest was more intriguing than The Curse of the Black Pearl, because of those religious elements they put into the second part -- 'We've got to take care of our immortal souls', as the funny one with the glass eye says, and the man clutching the Cross, defying Davy Jones (even though he's weak and trembling all over) and saying, 'I'll take my chances in the afterlife'. That was one of the highlights of the movie for me.
As a former Screen and Media student, I've thought a lot about this. (I hasten to add, we weren't taught to think about it at Uni...). The most important thing to consider is that the issue isn't restricted to movies. People have been rooting for the dashing bad guy since Lancelot, Robin Hood, Lemminkainen and Vainemoinen, Greek gods, demigods and heroes...

Of course, in the most memorable of these cases the emphasis is not on the sin of the hero, but the sin of the society surrounding him. Robin Hood steals, but to judge him harshly without also judging the feudal system and the corrupt Sherriff (hmm. Sheriff? Sherrif? Never mind) is to miss the point of the story. Similarly, rooting for Jean Valjean in Les Miserables (the book, gabbailey, not the movie; if you haven't read it yet, do so!) is in many ways more morally acceptable than rooting for Javert. The legality/morality argument may not be watertight, but it does bear a good thrashing-out every so often.

Nowadays antiheroes seem to occur far more often than 'actual' heroes in film. You won't see an Atticus Finch/Gregory Peck gracing the screen, but there will be Bonds galore, gorgeous crooks, ruffians with a heart of gold, misunderstood villains, Bruce Willis in any of a thousand variations... Usually (to generalise, but I do watch a LOT of films) society is not truly critiqued a la Robin Hood in these movies. The heroes aren't bad guys because they're forced to be, but because being a bad guy is cool. Different message.

Frankly though, I'd be more concerned about subtler worldview-destroying problems in movies. A movie full of guns and gore, bad guys and twisty moral dilemmas can be very thought-provoking (say, American History X as the ultimate anti-hero redemption tale), whereas a movie which quietly presents humanism, sexism, immorality and relativism as normal or cute is a good deal more dangerous. Take, say, the perky little film You've Got Mail. If you take the line that films teach, this one teaches... let's see... that cheating emotionally on your partner is okay as long as you don't get caught... that living together without commitment won't end in heartbreak, but in a giggly mutual breakup over happy coffee... that two-timing on the guy you cheated your first boyfriend for (whew!) is okay too, as long as you follow your heart... that owning an evil corporation is mildly reprehensible, but shouldn't reflect on your inherent likeability... and so on, and so forth. That kind of stuff, repeated in every piece of Hollywood fluff to adorn the summer holidays, is a lot more absorbable than hard-hitting messages in higher-rated, violent films. I would rather my kids saw something graphic--say a film like Trainspotting, which would probably put them off drugs for life--than a PG-rated teen comedy which casually had the characters using drugs, simply as a side note to the 'real' love story or whatever.

Now, this is kind of off the point. But don't be distracted by the shiny guns in Pirates; if you really want to get picky about worldviews, ask yourself if it was morally permissible for Elizabeth to break her promise to Commodore Norrington. 'Sacrifice as long as it doesn't inconvenience you' seems to be the message of the film.

Also, Dean Man's Chest was an appallingly bad movie.

[Nordic Kid]

That movie actually bored the snot out of me.

But that makes me a minority group!:tounge:

Yeah...I'd rather be debating theology or sociology than watching a movie any day. Or learning a language. Or talking to a loved one. Or hiking in the woods. Or...

[Whipartist]

In regards the OP. I think of the phenomena as artistic disunity. I believe it's a term I borrowed from Richard Pevear. It is the situation we often find ourselves in when we are engaging in art where the actual message is different from the way in which it's presented. Good bad guys, funny fooling around with sexual immorality. Being a tweaker is cute. It's all oxymoronic when you start defining it. I believe that these fables we all spend our time and money on are deeply impacting our culture to be immature and irrelevant to real life. Do not love the world nor the things of the world... the lust of the flesh, of the eyes and the boastful pride of life. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

To illustrate artistic disunity, think of Starwars. It's a pantheistic universe- in which "the Force" has a good side and a dark side. Balance needs to be restored to "the force." But how? By balancing good with bad? No but by destroying the bad entirely. So where's the balance?