Every movie has a worldview. For that matter, all media has a worldview.
This article on Relevant magazine's website covers an interview with Craig Detwiler, author of Into the Dark, which is a philosophical/theological analysis of some of the 21st century's most prevalent films. Detwiler probably overstates his case about the question of explicit content in movies (potential viewers are "missing the point" of the Bible if they don't see these movies), but overall his message of awareness is well-stated.
Movies and television are inherently mediums that don't allow for thoughtful reflection. A viewer must maintain consistent attentiveness to the rapidly changing visual presentation so much so that he or she cannot stop and think about it. Thus, it is important to reflect and think even more about movies and television. After all, every movie has a worldview.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Posts
7 comments:
This is a good thought (though we've talked about it before in conjunction with the value of Harry Potter reading). God whispers to us from the most obscure places...often I dont hear Him because I simply am just not listening.
I think most if not all movies that Hollywood puts out can have some sort of meaning to them. Even if that meaning is that we are incredibly depraved for putting out the filth that we do and watching the filth that we watch and need Christ's redemptive mercy in a substantial way (to give a shout out to your blog description).
Groothuis and other cultural critics are quite right though when they say that even if there are meaning to films you can find that same meaning in other mediums that are more thoughtful, like books. And it's more explicit there too. It's so sad that the entertainment level in (most) movies nowadays trumps any sort of attempt at philosophical or theological meaning.
And of course I'm not saying entertainment is bad-- I saw and loved Batman-- but aside from dissecting that movie's philosophical/theological issues of good vs. evil or other themes that I picked up on... it was just a helluva flick!
Agreed Daniel,
Sometimes I just want a good entertaining flick without having to think. This is my impulse behind wanting to see Indy Jones or Batman. I wonder if this is a base instinct or tending towards the sinful?
David:
To be frank, Dertwiller is not to be trusted overall. His book (co-authored) on popular culture was a theological disaster. He thinks new revelations are coming from pop culture and he refused to critique them biblically. I threw this book across the classroom (hard) a few years ago. No one was hurt.
Sorry, it is Detweiler, and the book is A Matrix of Meanings.
Here is my review of "A Matrix of Meanings" from Amazon. I wrote a longer one for "The Christian Research Journal."
45 of 80 people found the following review helpful:
The discernment gap, January 17, 2004
By Douglas Groothuis, Ph.D. "Douglas Groothuis"
The authors have assembled am impressive compendium of popular culture. Since I assiduously avoid direct contact with most of it (particularly movies and television), I learned a considerable amount about the rampant diseases that surround us. Hence, I award two stars instead of one.
However, the reader is left without any discernible theology of popular culture based on a biblical worldview. While the authors are associated with conservative Protestant schools, their approach is that of the archetypical theological liberal: Let's see what's happening in popular culture and make that the model for theologizing and encountering culture. Or, "The world sets the agenda for the church." They want to contruct a theology "out of popular culture" and refuse to theologize about popular culture from a biblical vantage point. The result is (1) an avoidance of the widespread moral and intellectual debachery that pervades popular culture and (2) a grasping at straws to find anything remotely like a biblical theme within it. For example, they attempt to draw out a profound idea from the scatological perverse and adolescent Austin Powers film. The result is embarrassing if not sacrilegious.
There is no sense of critique or antithesis regarding the wanton and gratituous violence of much of cinema, the schatological hate-mongering of much of rap (the infamous Eminem is mentioned, but never criticized), the pure vapidity of contemporary celebrity (they, in fact, try to redeem the idea--vapidly), and so on. The only outrage they can seem to muster is over the greed that has engulfed modern team sports. (Such greed expressed by musical and film celebrities is not mentioned.) Exteme sports, however, generates a smile from them--despite the fact that it often symbolizes narcissism on steroids with no concern for one's safety (or even that of innocent bystanders). One searches the book in vain to find any discussion of the concept of worldiness (see Romans 12:1-2; 1 John 2:15-17).
These supposedly Protestant authors repeatedly bash Reformed thought and practice for its iconoclasm and emphasis on written communication--the Word. The authors embrace an avowedly Roman Catholic sensibility of the image as sacramental (even outside the church) with no worries about sanctioning idolatry or about the inherent conceptual limits of images to convey truth. For a wiser response, read Arthur Hunt's, "The Vanishing Word" (Crossway, 2003). Tellingly, the authors bring up the most imporant book ever written on televison--Neil Postman's "Amusing Ourselves to Death (1985)"--only to dismiss it without an argument. The attitude is this: "Well, we cannot stop it, so let's learn to adjust to it." Never! One should refuse this counsel of despair--and read Postman (d. 2003) if you have not already.
All in all, I was repeatedly outraged by "A Matrix of Meanings" for the reasons cited above--and many, many more. My wife begged me to stop reading it, since I was sounding off about it constantly for days. Adding to the discomfort was a glib, ever-so-hip style adopted by the authors. Popular culture has indeed left its mark here.
Thanks for the new information Dr. Groothuis. I hadn't heard of Detwiler before, but occasionally I check out "Relevant magazine" to see what it is their writing about. Is it more pop culture items or do they engage serious issues with at least some care for scholarship and truth. This new information on Detwiler will certainly cause me to be more discerning with these new sources of information. I don't know if I could glean all of what you reviewed from this small article, but I'm sure I could have seen some of that.
Reformed theology and general/particular revelation certainly bear on this issue of media discernment-thanks for pointing that out. I also found Dr. Carroll's class on the Prophets to be another appropriate contrast to the pervasive and blind acceptance of popular culture by mainstream evangelicalism.
Post a Comment