I hope to see the Clone Wars later this week. A review should be forthcoming after that. Sorry about the non-writing; I have been working on the newspaper a heck of a lot.
I saw Hancock a few weeks ago. I don't feel like reviewing it, but a link that describes my thoughts (only funnier) almost to a "t" can be found here. BEWARE: Don't go there if you mind swearing, and if you don't want to find out what happens on season three of "Arrested Development," don't read what Jason Bateman says immediately after Will Smith asks him how he and Charlize Theron met.
Two other quick music notes. One is that I am getting more and more excited for the new Brave Saint Saturn album. The band has had two (very good) demos posted for a long time, but now, after several delays, IT'S ALMOST HERE.
Also, Ben Folds is releasing his latest album, "Way to Normal," at the end of September. Check out his Myspace to hear three new songs ("You Don't Know Me," "Hiroshima," Cologne") and two songs that he recorded to be silly and dumb on purpose just to mess with his fans ("Way to Normal" and the hilarious [but profanity laced] "B---- Went Nutz"). Again, BEWARE: Ben does swear on many of his songs. If you don't want to hear that, still go to the page and watch the video for Cologne. There is no profanity and the song is amazing.
Lastly, I am starting a new blog called Beauty/Conundrum. I don't know how often I'll be updating it, as I barely have time for this blog right now, but I wanted to start it because it portrays a more serious side of me, the side that talks about ideas and thoughts and feelings rather than movies, books and music. You can navigate to it on the sidebar of this blog. I won't be uploading it to Facebook (though it will be linked to under My Websites), so if you want to read it, you'll have to go to the actual blog. I posted something there today. I hope you like it.
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Monday, August 4, 2008
Reflections on media choices
Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things. - Philippians 4:8
...and there must be no filthiness and silly talk, or coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks. - Ephesians 5:4
These two verses have stirred endless amounts of debate among Christians, and I hope I won't add another argument. I merely wish to give my own thoughts and ask for your own.
I have often struggled to apply these verses to my life. I do try to follow them--I really do--but I am often confused about what the reach and intent of the verses are. Intent: that is the important thing, or so it has been drilled into my skull since coming to Northwestern (also, my apologies for this horrendous sentence). In fact, this has altogether been an ill-conceived paragraph, so please move on to the next one.
With the first verse, I am faced with two questions:
Question 1: How am I to determine what is true, noble, right, pure, etc. in the context of media?
"The Dark Knight" is a perfect example here. In fact, it is the example that sparked my idea for this blog. The other day, I was chatting about entertainment with an older friend who I respect very much, particularly in regard to his spiritual insights. He was telling me that he had been reading my blog, and I asked him if he had checked out my TDK review because I feel that that is one of my better blogs, and I liked the movie a lot. He said he had, but he hadn't liked the film that much because it was too dark for him. I understood; I don't think the movie is for everyone, even though I do think it is extremely well put together.
However, the subject came up later in the day with someone else that we both know, and my friend reiterated his dislike, this time including the fact that he thought it was too dark from an objectively biblical standpoint, pointing to the Philippians verse as a guideline (sorry if I'm embarrassing you, my unnamed friend, but I'm writing this because I really do respect your spiritual insights). His statement got me thinking about the positive/negative aspects of the movie.
The only negative aspect I could think of (and it is certainly the one he was referring to) was the shown or (as was usually the case) implicit violence. While I do think that this is a legitimate concern--the movie is filled with it--I did not come to the same conclusions as my friend.
Most of the violence in the movie is perpetrated by the Joker. While the SPOILER SKIP THIS PART OF THE SENTENCE OK YOU'VE HAD YOUR WARNING pencil thing END OF SPOILER CONTINUE READING is pretty funny, it is funny on a level that the Joker has always had: one that makes him utterly terrible and terrifying. All of his violent, disturbing actions in the movie are designed to be unnerving, not to be glorifying. You grow to absolutely despise the Joker, to the point that you want him to be killed in order to stop the terror.
In short, the violence is the farthest thing from glorified. Its purpose is to paint a stark picture of evil and to show why such evil needs to vanquished, even if the cost is monumentally high.
That, I think, is the point that I would pick if I had to pick only one overarching theme for the entire movie: while it raises many hard questions, the movie ultimately champions those who do the right thing and fight against evil, even when it means extraordinary sacrifices must be made. That, to me, is a very noble and true thing to portray, and the movie makes its points while also being gripping, intelligent and entertaining. However, the challenge is still there: what makes a film or a song or a book noble, right, pure, lovely and admirable?
Question 2: Is it ok for us to to consume entertainment that does not fit this standard/that contains some material that does not fit this standard? If so, how much content is too much?
Example? "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy," my absolute favorite novel by my absolute favorite novelist, avowed atheist Douglas Adams. I believe that all of his Hitchhiker books (with the unfortunate exception of "So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish") have some good things to say about the absurdity of existence and the pointlessness of many of our everyday activities, mirroring Ecclesiastes in many ways. However, he doesn't ever give the spiritual solution found in Ecclesiastes (although the physical one--work hard and enjoy the fruits of your labor--does show up in book five), and I would be lying if I didn't say that the main reason I enjoy the books is simply because they are gut-bustingly hilarious.
Besides the fact that there are, essentially, no spiritually uplifting elements in the book, there is also a mild amount of profanity, fair amounts of mildly-to-fairly crude humor (more on those two elements in section two of this blog), some instances of taking God's name in vain and some irreverent jokes. However, I love it. It is so funny.
Am I doing the wrong thing? Why or why not? Where is that line drawn? Obviously, we aren't only to think on such things. There's nothing wrong with listening to a knock-knock joke, and this link contains pretty good evidence of God using a pun--a pretty silly pun at that--in the book of Jeremiah.
What about objectionable content like the things I mentioned above? Almost every piece of media not explicitly "Christian"--and even some of that is--contains elements that some people might find wrong. Where's the line?
While I do think that there are things that are objectively objectionable and not good to consume, I think a good guideline is to wonder if the intake of such media is hampering you spiritually. However, sometimes one can turn a blind eye to such hampering. Prayer is a good idea when faced with something that you feel might not be a good idea.
Before some of you dismiss me for kids-stuff-Sunday-School pandering, allow me to be a bit boorish in saying that you probably need to hear this more than anyone. I know many Christians, and I unfortunately must sometimes include myself among them, who disregard these verses and will watch/read/listen to anything, all the while claiming that it doesn't affect them. Sometimes they don't even go that far; they merely like what they see, screw the consequences.
If you don't think that this verse applies to media consumption in some way, what do you think the verse is for?
I'm still trying to work this one out. I really don't think that we should only consume media that contains only positive/neutral elements. But I do think that this verse is important, and that it does apply, individually-conscience-wise and objectively, to certain pieces of media. What do you think?
The second verse also brings to mind two questions, and I think that my gut reactions may be contrary to a lot of yours.
Question 1: What is coarse jesting or profane speech?
I will say right away that taking God's name in vain is wrong. It's right there in the Bible, and if you do that, you are objectively sinning. However, what about some of the other things people say?
Take, for example, swearing. Swearing is almost completely subjective. If I say "piss," some of you would disapprove, some of you wouldn't even raise an eyebrow. If I said "crap" or "dang" around my grandma, she might think me rather uncouth. But most of you wouldn't care.
There are words that are even more borderline--words like "hell" or "bastard." However, people's opinions change even on the subject of more recognized profanities.
I would never say "the f-word" or "the s-word" or "the b-word" or usually even "the d-word" or "the a-word" around my parents. However, I have used all of them before, although I generally try to curb my usage substantially so as not to offend (and because excessive swearing makes you sound like an idiot who has never heard of synonyms).
Now, before you burn me at the stake, I should point out that most of you are probably fans of at least the first "Pirates of the Caribbean" movie. However, they spout off the word "bloody" in that movie quite often, which is deemed rather (or perhaps more) profane in many other countries. However, we laughingly indulge in this foreign profanity as we quote all of Johnny Depp's funny lines. There are other examples of this type of thing, when an odd word would constitute an egregious insult in another culture.
Remember when I said I didn't want to offend others by swearing? I think that the key lies there. While sometimes people just need to lighten up, I do believe that, since crudity can oftentimes be a culturally or even individually defined thing, we should watch what we say--and what we watch/read/hear--around others who might stumble or be offended at our speech. This can protect our witness with some, show how we are different to others and keep our good standing with many people. Again, while some people just need to learn that some things are ok, perhaps it is not always our job to teach them these things.
Question 2: Where is the line where the individually defined becomes objective? And, with that, are there some generally recognized crude topics that are ok to joke about?
The problem with my above statements is that some people will venture into the crude realm quite unabashedly, and some things are, I believe, objectively crass.
Take, for yet another example, bestiality. I believe that joking about bestiality is gross, coarse, crass and inappropriate, and I believe that no one should do it. But why do I think this? Because it's a sin? No, because people joke about theft and lying and even murder and premarital/homosexual sex all the time (although I do believe some of that to be objectionable as well, especially joking about homosexual sex. And yet we get a kick out of people pretending to be gay). Why is it objectionable then? To be honest, I'm not sure I know. But I do firmly believe that it's not something to be joked about. Again, maybe prayer is the best answer here as well.
The other part of that question is that I have definitely laughed at jokes that would be generally considered crass and even at jokes that I would consider to be crass. A prime example of this would be the TV show "Arrested Development." AD is the most cleverly-written TV show I have ever watched. It can also be very crude at times, and sometimes I laugh at this crudity. The most popular character on the show is GOB, a womanizing, sometimes foul-mouthed, immature dope. And with good reason: he's absolutely hilarious, even if many of his one-liners are crude.
Again, it's a cop-out to say that he's wrong because he jokes about sin, unless you shun jokes about greed, theft, murder, assault etc. (and what about heist movies? The Oceans flicks and others glorify theft, but man is the first one entertaining) But why is he wrong? Is it wrong that I laugh at things that are mildly crude? What is the answer?
I'm not sure I know. I'd love to hear your answers. For now, I'm going to keep trying to work out my faith with fear and trembling. Gotta get my Bible, gotta talk to God.
...and there must be no filthiness and silly talk, or coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks. - Ephesians 5:4
These two verses have stirred endless amounts of debate among Christians, and I hope I won't add another argument. I merely wish to give my own thoughts and ask for your own.
I have often struggled to apply these verses to my life. I do try to follow them--I really do--but I am often confused about what the reach and intent of the verses are. Intent: that is the important thing, or so it has been drilled into my skull since coming to Northwestern (also, my apologies for this horrendous sentence). In fact, this has altogether been an ill-conceived paragraph, so please move on to the next one.
With the first verse, I am faced with two questions:
Question 1: How am I to determine what is true, noble, right, pure, etc. in the context of media?
"The Dark Knight" is a perfect example here. In fact, it is the example that sparked my idea for this blog. The other day, I was chatting about entertainment with an older friend who I respect very much, particularly in regard to his spiritual insights. He was telling me that he had been reading my blog, and I asked him if he had checked out my TDK review because I feel that that is one of my better blogs, and I liked the movie a lot. He said he had, but he hadn't liked the film that much because it was too dark for him. I understood; I don't think the movie is for everyone, even though I do think it is extremely well put together.
However, the subject came up later in the day with someone else that we both know, and my friend reiterated his dislike, this time including the fact that he thought it was too dark from an objectively biblical standpoint, pointing to the Philippians verse as a guideline (sorry if I'm embarrassing you, my unnamed friend, but I'm writing this because I really do respect your spiritual insights). His statement got me thinking about the positive/negative aspects of the movie.
The only negative aspect I could think of (and it is certainly the one he was referring to) was the shown or (as was usually the case) implicit violence. While I do think that this is a legitimate concern--the movie is filled with it--I did not come to the same conclusions as my friend.
Most of the violence in the movie is perpetrated by the Joker. While the SPOILER SKIP THIS PART OF THE SENTENCE OK YOU'VE HAD YOUR WARNING pencil thing END OF SPOILER CONTINUE READING is pretty funny, it is funny on a level that the Joker has always had: one that makes him utterly terrible and terrifying. All of his violent, disturbing actions in the movie are designed to be unnerving, not to be glorifying. You grow to absolutely despise the Joker, to the point that you want him to be killed in order to stop the terror.
In short, the violence is the farthest thing from glorified. Its purpose is to paint a stark picture of evil and to show why such evil needs to vanquished, even if the cost is monumentally high.
That, I think, is the point that I would pick if I had to pick only one overarching theme for the entire movie: while it raises many hard questions, the movie ultimately champions those who do the right thing and fight against evil, even when it means extraordinary sacrifices must be made. That, to me, is a very noble and true thing to portray, and the movie makes its points while also being gripping, intelligent and entertaining. However, the challenge is still there: what makes a film or a song or a book noble, right, pure, lovely and admirable?
Question 2: Is it ok for us to to consume entertainment that does not fit this standard/that contains some material that does not fit this standard? If so, how much content is too much?
Example? "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy," my absolute favorite novel by my absolute favorite novelist, avowed atheist Douglas Adams. I believe that all of his Hitchhiker books (with the unfortunate exception of "So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish") have some good things to say about the absurdity of existence and the pointlessness of many of our everyday activities, mirroring Ecclesiastes in many ways. However, he doesn't ever give the spiritual solution found in Ecclesiastes (although the physical one--work hard and enjoy the fruits of your labor--does show up in book five), and I would be lying if I didn't say that the main reason I enjoy the books is simply because they are gut-bustingly hilarious.
Besides the fact that there are, essentially, no spiritually uplifting elements in the book, there is also a mild amount of profanity, fair amounts of mildly-to-fairly crude humor (more on those two elements in section two of this blog), some instances of taking God's name in vain and some irreverent jokes. However, I love it. It is so funny.
Am I doing the wrong thing? Why or why not? Where is that line drawn? Obviously, we aren't only to think on such things. There's nothing wrong with listening to a knock-knock joke, and this link contains pretty good evidence of God using a pun--a pretty silly pun at that--in the book of Jeremiah.
What about objectionable content like the things I mentioned above? Almost every piece of media not explicitly "Christian"--and even some of that is--contains elements that some people might find wrong. Where's the line?
While I do think that there are things that are objectively objectionable and not good to consume, I think a good guideline is to wonder if the intake of such media is hampering you spiritually. However, sometimes one can turn a blind eye to such hampering. Prayer is a good idea when faced with something that you feel might not be a good idea.
Before some of you dismiss me for kids-stuff-Sunday-School pandering, allow me to be a bit boorish in saying that you probably need to hear this more than anyone. I know many Christians, and I unfortunately must sometimes include myself among them, who disregard these verses and will watch/read/listen to anything, all the while claiming that it doesn't affect them. Sometimes they don't even go that far; they merely like what they see, screw the consequences.
If you don't think that this verse applies to media consumption in some way, what do you think the verse is for?
I'm still trying to work this one out. I really don't think that we should only consume media that contains only positive/neutral elements. But I do think that this verse is important, and that it does apply, individually-conscience-wise and objectively, to certain pieces of media. What do you think?
The second verse also brings to mind two questions, and I think that my gut reactions may be contrary to a lot of yours.
Question 1: What is coarse jesting or profane speech?
I will say right away that taking God's name in vain is wrong. It's right there in the Bible, and if you do that, you are objectively sinning. However, what about some of the other things people say?
Take, for example, swearing. Swearing is almost completely subjective. If I say "piss," some of you would disapprove, some of you wouldn't even raise an eyebrow. If I said "crap" or "dang" around my grandma, she might think me rather uncouth. But most of you wouldn't care.
There are words that are even more borderline--words like "hell" or "bastard." However, people's opinions change even on the subject of more recognized profanities.
I would never say "the f-word" or "the s-word" or "the b-word" or usually even "the d-word" or "the a-word" around my parents. However, I have used all of them before, although I generally try to curb my usage substantially so as not to offend (and because excessive swearing makes you sound like an idiot who has never heard of synonyms).
Now, before you burn me at the stake, I should point out that most of you are probably fans of at least the first "Pirates of the Caribbean" movie. However, they spout off the word "bloody" in that movie quite often, which is deemed rather (or perhaps more) profane in many other countries. However, we laughingly indulge in this foreign profanity as we quote all of Johnny Depp's funny lines. There are other examples of this type of thing, when an odd word would constitute an egregious insult in another culture.
Remember when I said I didn't want to offend others by swearing? I think that the key lies there. While sometimes people just need to lighten up, I do believe that, since crudity can oftentimes be a culturally or even individually defined thing, we should watch what we say--and what we watch/read/hear--around others who might stumble or be offended at our speech. This can protect our witness with some, show how we are different to others and keep our good standing with many people. Again, while some people just need to learn that some things are ok, perhaps it is not always our job to teach them these things.
Question 2: Where is the line where the individually defined becomes objective? And, with that, are there some generally recognized crude topics that are ok to joke about?
The problem with my above statements is that some people will venture into the crude realm quite unabashedly, and some things are, I believe, objectively crass.
Take, for yet another example, bestiality. I believe that joking about bestiality is gross, coarse, crass and inappropriate, and I believe that no one should do it. But why do I think this? Because it's a sin? No, because people joke about theft and lying and even murder and premarital/homosexual sex all the time (although I do believe some of that to be objectionable as well, especially joking about homosexual sex. And yet we get a kick out of people pretending to be gay). Why is it objectionable then? To be honest, I'm not sure I know. But I do firmly believe that it's not something to be joked about. Again, maybe prayer is the best answer here as well.
The other part of that question is that I have definitely laughed at jokes that would be generally considered crass and even at jokes that I would consider to be crass. A prime example of this would be the TV show "Arrested Development." AD is the most cleverly-written TV show I have ever watched. It can also be very crude at times, and sometimes I laugh at this crudity. The most popular character on the show is GOB, a womanizing, sometimes foul-mouthed, immature dope. And with good reason: he's absolutely hilarious, even if many of his one-liners are crude.
Again, it's a cop-out to say that he's wrong because he jokes about sin, unless you shun jokes about greed, theft, murder, assault etc. (and what about heist movies? The Oceans flicks and others glorify theft, but man is the first one entertaining) But why is he wrong? Is it wrong that I laugh at things that are mildly crude? What is the answer?
I'm not sure I know. I'd love to hear your answers. For now, I'm going to keep trying to work out my faith with fear and trembling. Gotta get my Bible, gotta talk to God.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
