Due to the success of Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ, movie studios are developing a new market for “faith-based” films. I don’t particularly care for this term as all of the films tend to be Christian based. There is nothing wrong with Christian films but Christianity does not encompass all faith so the term is kind of a misnomer.
Lionsgate, known for releasing indie films such as , American Psycho, House of 1000 Corpses and Fahrenheit 9/11 among others, has teamed up with Thomas Nelson Books, a Christian publishing company, while the Weinstein Company is teaming with Impact Entertainment, a Christian movie company. Some of these releases will be direct to DVD while others will be theatrical releases.
Religious-themed films are not new. The Ten Commandments was released in 1956, Ben-Hur in 1959 and Jesus Christ Superstar in 1973. But there is something about this new crop of films that leaves a bad taste in my mouth. The Weinstein Company will release a movie based on the writings of Joyce Meyer, a TV evangelist who owns five homes and has all of her utilities paid for by Joyce Meyer Ministries, not out of her own pocket. Lionsgate is releasing a film version of the Lee Strobel book The Case for Christ in which Strobel, a Christian apologist and former investigative journalist and lawyer, seeks to prove that Jesus was God’s son by using the methodologies of a journalist/lawyer.
Here is my problem: I’m not a big fan of proselytism. I love faith, I love people of faith, but I also see faith as first and foremost a personal relationship between the individual and the divine (whatever that divinity may be). These films strike me as God propaganda. The audience in mind is not the believer, but the unbeliever who “needs to be saved”. From the perspective of the movie companies, however it is sound business decision. They will make money off the faith of others. Everyone gets a little salvation in the end.
The two biggest news stories of the past week have been the incredibly stupid “controversy” regarding Don Imus and the tragic school shooting at Virginia Tech. I did not intend to write about either of them, mainly because I figured I had nothing to add. The Imus thing was hyped-up, manufactured crap and the shooting was horrible. Somehow I doubted anyone needed me to tell them that so I wasn’t going to.
But listening to the news the past couple of days I realized there is another issue that is underlying both the Imus and Virginia Tech stories. Censorship. Or to be more precise, self-censorship.
In order to drag what should have been a one day story out over an entire week, news organizations were forced to bring on pundits to debate the Imus flap. The thing is the debates really had very little to do with Imus or his stupid comment. They turned into discussions over who gets to say what. One argument raised was why don’t we (meaning society I guess) hold rappers to the same standards that we hold 67 year-old shock jocks? Is it acceptable to hold different people to different standards? If so then what Imus said was not the issue, but the fact that it was Imus who said it that was the problem.
Jump ahead a week. NBC recieves a package from Cho Seung-hui, the shooter responsible for the massacre at Virginia Tech. The package contains a video, some photos and a manifesto of sorts. NBC decides to air the footage and other news outlets do the same. Should they have done so? Again the arguments. By making it public are we giving him the attention and notriety that he seeks while at the same time being insensitive to the family and friends of the victims? On the other hand, is their something to be learned from watching these videos that might help the common man to identify like-minded individuals and possibly prevent this type of event from happening again? Both are sound and reasonable arguments.
Irving Kristol, the godfather of neoconservatism, once said “If you care for the quality of life in our American democracy, then you have to be for censorship”. Kristol is, of course, wrong. With censorship you don’t get Richard Pryor or Lenny Bruce. While Don Imus is nowhere near Pryor or Bruce, there is something to be said for trying to push the limits.
I also support responsible journalism. Sensationalism and titallation get nowhere with me. Given proper context the video of Cho Seung-hui can be shown in a manner that could enlighten people as to his state of mind. If done for ratings, for “gotcha journalism” purposes then it is a disgrace. I am not an absolutist. Different situations requrie different responses. There is not one standard for all.
