The Moral Pulse of the Oscars (by Gareth Higgins)
The Oscars are a little under two weeks from now - with the threat of the writer's strike leading to an unexpected interruption of one of the most surreal nights of the pop culture year now gone. Rich and famous folk slapping each other on the back, handing out gold statuettes for works of art that many of us haven't seen. It has always surprised me how the winning speeches rarely seem to mention the films that have led to their success – family members, agents, even pets get name-checked – but few awardees talk about the feelings the film may have stirred in the audience. It's as if the heady emotions that are caused at the cinema are too … human … to talk about at something so tawdry as an awards ceremony. Just imagine Jack Nicholson or Nicole Kidman or Will Ferrell discoursing on questions such as the power dynamics in The Godfather, or the sense of loss in American Beauty, or the hope exemplified in Magnolia on the Kodak Theatre stage, and you'll get the picture.
But every now and then, of course, we get the kind of standout moment exemplified by Michael Moore's none-too-subtle attempt at culturally impeaching the president by invoking both the Dixie Chicks and Pope John Paul II at the red-carpetless ceremony that took place just a few days after the war in Iraq began in 2003. In spite of its clunkiness, here at least was a sincere stab at using one of the biggest platforms on earth to make a difference for the common good.
The interesting thing this year is that the films speak for themselves as ethical statements. Each of the five Best Picture nominees represents a high quality attempt at exploring a question of morality, and each takes its purpose seriously enough to propose a response that could stand alongside the kind of ethical positions people who seek to embody progressive spirituality might take.
Michael Clayton is a David and Goliath story about one flawed individual's refusal to continue to be complicit in injustice on a massive scale – and manages to show just how much it costs to stand up for what is right - although it's always better to be poor on the outside than the other way round.
No Country for Old Men pictures a world in which kindness is not enough to defeat darkness, and where evil indulges itself relentlessly; but has an ending that, while oblique, may actually be teaching the audience something very profound about the nature of human relationships and the abuse of power.
Juno is that rare thing – a liberal pro-life comedy, in which the families are honest and loving but don't feel like stereotypes.
Atonement, a remarkably accomplished film, does not offer much hope for those who wish to make peace with the past, and bleakly presents a vision of the world where its title is impossible.
And There Will Be Blood is a unique piece of cinema – illustrating a crisis at the intersection of greed and passion, money and family, religion and oil.
Who wins doesn't much matter to me (well, except for my hope that Marion Cotillard's almost preternatural embodiment of Edith Piaf in La vie en Rose is rewarded, given that, in my book, it's one of the finest pieces of acting I've ever seen), as long as films such as these find a wider audience. Paul Tillich wrote that the church should provide an 'answering theology' – that is, it should seek to answer the questions that society is asking. This year, the movies seem to have got there before the church; and it may well be that the Oscars seem to have found the moral pulse of our society.
Gareth Higgins is a Christian writer and activist in Belfast, Northern Ireland. For the past decade he was the founder/director of the zero28 project, an initiative addressing questions of peace, justice, and culture. He is the author of the insightful How Movies Helped Save My Soul and blogs at www.godisnotelsewhere.blogspot.com
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
Imagine all the people . . .
in Hollywood:
Living as role models for abstinence and moral purity. Imagaine the actors and the directors calling for children to honor their mother and father. And, when the time comes embracing and living in a Godly marriage and staying committed to each other in love for life?
No more rehab clinics. No more deaths by drug overdose. No more murders by gun violence. No more serial killers motivated by movie horror. No more gang violence. No more porn industry. No more AIDS. No more abortions as a birth control, method. No more divorce. No more fatherless homes. No more poverty.
Imagine.
Posted by: Donny | February 14, 2008 10:35 AM
There was a time when Hollywood was like that, or at least tried to look like it. And then the reaction hit...
Posted by: Charles Cosimano | February 14, 2008 11:19 AM
The Oscars today have little to do with the 'best' as to do with who was able to sell out the souls or dignety for the coveted statuettes. I enjoy watching them with my high school friends because it is something that we have done every year since high school. Many of them are people that have a lot more talent than me. But I am the only one with 8 feature films to his credit - God does have a sence of humor.
So - I will be sitting watching the Oscars and waiting to see which song gets the little guy.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | February 14, 2008 11:27 AM
It's Hollywood. There is no moral pulse.
Michael Moore committed more untruth telling than any other filmmaker in history.
They don't talk about the audience, they only care about themselves and what each other thinks of them.
They have no finger on my pulse. Where's the hero that doesn't swear, sleep with loose women, gives up fame and fortune to do the right thing, gets hated by all for being conservative?
Ok, ok, that was over the top, but Hollywood productions consist of little more than liberal indoctrination today. "Gay is good". "Christians are bigots". "Conservatives are dumb". "Old fashioned values are really no good at all".
With almost no execeptions, there's few real stories about real people doing real things, with real values, real courage, real dedication to real principles.
It becomes not hard to imagine that all of you reading this as well become tired of having the highest things you hold to mocked and derided, and you haul the DVD back to the movie store, having not played the last 90 of 127 minutes.
I love a good love story as well as the next person. But why must the only TRUE love be two men or two women?
And why can't at least a few incredibly talented people who have a grip on life create music for us?
Yes, it's the Oscars, and fawning millions. I can't stomach watching it.
Posted by: mark | February 14, 2008 11:48 AM
The censor years of the code, from the mid-thirties to the sixties, didn't result in any more truth-telling, just suppression of impolitic truths in service of propaganda.
Guess what, the people in Hollywood are just like us, but exposed, for all the world to see.
That should awaken in us a renewed commitment against complacency and compromise in our own lives for Hollywood is our early-morning mirror, showing us with all our sags and wrinkles, before we put our mask on for the day.
Posted by: N.M. Rod | February 14, 2008 12:00 PM
Guess what, the people in Hollywood are just like us, but exposed, for all the world to see.
NO THEY ARE NOT.
They are NOTHING like me. Probably NOTHING like you, either.
Posted by: mark | February 14, 2008 12:04 PM
I buried the Hollywood influence in me when I buried my child. My child, from the time I lived Hollywood morality (immorality).
And Hollywood will coronate their ruler that night.
Not mine though.
Take notice and flee him.
May God forgive them all and heal their wayward minds, bodies and spirits.
And me and mine.
Posted by: Away now | February 14, 2008 12:13 PM
I've lived in Los Angeles. I have relatives who work in the industry.
It's no better or worse than anywhere else, including small towns like the one I live now far from there.
When I got out of it, I thought it was morally worse, but experience in businesses and other places small and large since have shown me beyond any doubt that the same moral failures are universal in every environment.
It's just by the nature of show business, highly exhibitionistic and revealing - that it exposes on a large canvas what's in all of us, for good or ill.
They are like me - and like you. You don't get to resign from the human race by just declaring it, long as you exist.
If you're horrified by what you see, that's good, but you're looking at yourself, too.
Instead of reviling the darkness, light a lamp.
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | February 14, 2008 12:29 PM
Donny,
You sound like John Lennon!
You know it's not that simple. Either that, or you give Hollywood far too muuch credit for its potential to combat the problems of greed, lust, and pride.
Immorality and almost all of the problems you mentioned existed long before Hollywood. Romans chapter 1 - are things really any different now than they were in Paul's time?
I agree that the media - all media, not just Hollywood - has a powerful influence on our culture (and yes, we export our 'values' to an unsuspecting world), but it's the basic law of economics - supply and demand. As long as there is money to be made from the media, as long as there is a demand for sex and violence from Hollywood and the other media, including the 'news' media, the media will continue to supply the product.
Peace!
Posted by: neuro_nurse | February 14, 2008 1:45 PM
Hollywood has the capability to end the violence and sexual perversions and promiscuity it produces, promotes and supports. High School Musical 2, proved that "even" our kids, want decent storylines.
Posted by: Donny | February 14, 2008 2:08 PM
"Hollywood has the capability to end the violence and sexual perversions and promiscuity it produces, promotes and supports."
Maybe - I doubt it, but it won't anyway.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
That's the bottom line.
Posted by: neuro_nurse | February 14, 2008 2:48 PM
"Imagine all the people . . .
in Hollywood:
Living as role models for abstinence and moral purity. Imagaine the actors and the directors calling for children to honor their mother and father. And, when the time comes embracing and living in a Godly marriage and staying committed to each other in love for life?
No more rehab clinics. No more deaths by drug overdose. No more murders by gun violence. No more serial killers motivated by movie horror. No more gang violence. No more porn industry. No more AIDS. No more abortions as a birth control, method. No more divorce. No more fatherless homes. No more poverty.
Imagine."
Maybe we should expect this of Christians first. Hollywood is in no better shape than any of the rest of the world. They just get more publicity.
Out of the last four pastors I have had one was put in jail (for making obscene phone calls to the young girls in his own church & god knows what else) & he was addicted to porn; the next, was well to put it nicely was crazy; the third, had an affair with the preschool director; the fourth, only cared about numbers & using any/every new gimmick to get members while he taped himself all the time to "shop" his skills to get jobs at bigger & better churches.
Maybe when I see it in the church I will expect Hollywood to do better themselves.
Posted by: mom4vr61 | February 14, 2008 3:41 PM
Ahh, the good old days where everyone was moral and nobody sinned! Where does this myth come from that there was a time when people actually lived a moral life? Maybe it comes from the fact that reality was not publicized, it was not talked about. We saw a sanitized version of life where everyone was perfect. But guess what, the world was no better of a place when Hollywood has Clark Gable than when George Clooney ran wild.
US Government documents in World War II said 80% of US troops were sexually active while overseas. Did they take their wives with them? The military rationed condoms to the men at the rate of 6 per month.
The world is no more sexual today as it was in days past, it's just not lied about anymore.
Posted by: Steve K | February 14, 2008 5:18 PM
In response to "The world is no more sexual today as it was in days past, it's just not lied about anymore." and other posts like it.
When I first became a Christian, I really thought people in the church were different--they had more self-control, they didn't get divorced, they didn't have affairs, no one ever got pregnant out of wedlock, etc, etc. Then, reality slowly crept in, and I learned this wasn't the case at all.
I'd like to think people in the church actually are better and more moral than people outside the church, but it just hasn't been my experience. We still screw up, sometimes royally. Just last week, I learned the worship leader in my old church was having an affair. I would never have guessed he was capable of falling in that way, and yet, here we are.
I used to feel really disillusioned every time one of these sins in the church reared its ugly head. But now I take a broader view--we're all knuckleheads, every last one of us. And no matter how hard we try, even if we are Christians, we are no better than any other knucklehead who is not a Christian. We have all sinned and fallen short. But God's grace is big enough for the worst of us...and somehow, I think that is what our focus needs to be--not pointing each other's sins out (with what little vision we have what with that big plank sticking forth from our eyes), but focusing on how God's grace sets us free from sin to do His work.
(Please note my use of the word "knucklehead" should not, in any way, be taken as a slur on Canucklehead).
Blessings,
Da Squeakster
Posted by: squeaky | February 14, 2008 5:51 PM
Squeaky and others:
Why, though, does the church want to focus on sexual sins? Is it only because they are more apparent? What about sins of pride (the most insidious of all, IMO)? What about greed? Covetousness? Or gluttony (that one is often obvious, too)?
We get hung up on sexual sins, which are largely sins against one's own body, and ignore sins that have a tremendously negative effect on society and culture.
Why?
Peace,
Posted by: Don | February 15, 2008 7:34 AM
"I'd like to think people in the church actually are better and more moral than people outside the church, but it just hasn't been my experience."
It has been my experience that, in the long term, those who are serious about God are more faithful and make better decisions with their lives. Churches that don't expect this of their members, however, are unlikely to see this result, and involvement in a church does not make one a Christian.
I have seen three of the five nominees. I don't see how Juno is necessarily liberal or pro-life. I don't think Diablo Cody intended it to be either. It was very funny, though, and I hope that this film opens the door for other writers who possess a more distinct voice.
No Country for Old Men is the best film I have seen in a long time. I sincerely hope that it wins, though I find it's nihilism to be preciely the opposite of any articulated morality.
Michael Clayton is, I suppose, a morality play. This is signified by the presence of George Clooney as the protagonist. I get a bit tired of Clooney casting himself as the symbolic purveyor of all that is fair and just while everyone else just wants money (or is insane). But Tilda Swinton and Tom Wilkinson make almost any film worth watching.
Posted by: kevin s. | February 15, 2008 10:16 AM
"Why, though, does the church want to focus on sexual sins? Is it only because they are more apparent? What about sins of pride (the most insidious of all, IMO)? What about greed? Covetousness? Or gluttony (that one is often obvious, too)?"
Paul says that sexual sin is a sin against your own body, and an affair is siffucient grounds for divorce. I think the damaging effects of sexual sin are sufficient to merit "extra attention".
As it relates to movies, sex in film is, essentially, real. There are naked bodies doing very sexual things. That cannot be said for any other element of drama, which is not real.
I do not leave "No Country For Old Men" feeling as though I have stolen money and killed people, and I certainly didn't have any greater inclination to do so. But when I watch a pretty lady doff her clothes, I assuredly have a greater inclination to commit a similar act.
(note: that is not an argument for exploitive violence in films)
That said, I am inclined to agree that the church overemphasizes sexual sin. One point I would make is that sexual sin seems to be a major point of contention for those who do not know Christ. As such, it generates the most controversy and argumentation.
If a council of churches comes out with a plan for the nation to lose weight, nobody is going to pay attention. It is not a point of contention that Americans need to lose weight. If a church came out and said it was Americans fault for being fat because they are gluttons, I suppose you would see some controversy.
I think pride leads to sin, and it is well worth addressing. My pastor defines pride as any act that places self over God. Don't want to take the time to pray, read your Bible and meditate on God's word? That's not laziness. It's pride. So you are right that pride is insidious, but I think good churches address the issue regularly.
But identifying a Hollywood film that glorifies pride specificallyt is a bit difficult. What film would you pick? Oceans Thirteen? Catch Me If You Can? I have no idea.
Posted by: kevin s. | February 15, 2008 10:50 AM
Many military-motif films glorify pride.
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | February 15, 2008 10:58 AM
I agree that the obsession with sexual sin in the church is practically at the level of idolatry. That is to say that we seem to treat the ideal of sexual purity as if it were more redemptive than grace. The fact is that Jesus wiped out all the simple litmus tests of sexual purity and other points of pious pride (now there's a misnomer!) by saying that whoever looks upon a woman with lust has already committed adultery in his heart. The most liberating thing about this Jesus is that he lays out an absolutely impossible standard (perfection) and then offers us grace.
Like many evangelicals born in the 50's and 60's, I grew up with an extraordinary focus on sexual sin and "swearing". It created a great deal of religious fervor that in retrospect I can identify as adrenaline producing warfare with my very human nature as a human, hence sexual, being. And I had a very clear understanding that taking the Lord's name in vain meant "cussing" (more about that later).
During a period of time when a medical condition and the accompanying treatment blunted my libido, I had a very different experience of my religious emotion. In other words, what I had believed was the feeling of great devotion to Jesus turned out to be emotions related to the battle to be sexually pure. And though my outward actions had enabled me to say I was not sexually active, according to Jesus standard, I was depraved.
Before this medical condition occurred, the feeling of uncleanliness kept me on my knees, always aware of how easily I could fall off the wagon of the faithful. As a result, I experienced a very intense relationship with bible study (always seeing the ways in which I was being morally upright), prayer (Oh Lord, thank you that I am not like my sexually active classmates, and I'm really, really sorry for those recent fantasies), and evangelism (if I can witness to everyone I come in contact with, the blood of their unsaved souls will not be on my hands - phew!).
During the time when my sexual desire was not present, the engine for my so-called faith was impotent as well. My prayers didn't seem so fervent, what with the sexual tension gone.
Hmmmm. Seems like I was sold a strange (but not uncommon) version of faith. It was the not unlike the target of Jesus' harshest criticism: the pious Pharisees, who could claim their salvation based on refraining from certain acts, rather than seeing themselves as creatures in need of the Creator's redemption, and expressing their faith in acts of mercy and kindness.
The proverbial scales fell from my eyes when I discovered that a living faith wasn't that (appropriately) satirized version of a weeping Jimmy Swaggart who confesses to sin publicly when caught in adultery. Rather it is leaving the comfort zone of insular Bible study group addicts who huddle together in order to not step foot in the sinful secular world.
It means focusing on doing faith and accepting grace rather than being so afraid of messing up that people create a parallel Xtian world that is Of the World but not In it. (Xtian tv, xtian movies, xtian music, xtian news, blah, blah, blah blah).
And it means that what should invigorate my prayers and my actions is a fervent attention to the poor, the lonely, the outcasts, the widows and orphans, and being a peacemaker. It means speaking out against the lies of a so-called Xtian administration that has convinced many of the faithful that war in the name of killing Jihadists (oh yeah, and protecting our God-given American way of life - translated: conspicuous consumption), torture (how did we end up defending this?) and many other acts of arrogance.
And then there's that convenient point of pride that by not cussing, we have upheld the commandment not to take the Lord's name in vain.
God is not mocked. Taking the Lord's name in vain is not simply employing the names Jesus, God, and Lord in a casual way. More importantly it means taking on the name of Christ and then doing the works of darkness: allowing policies and actions that impact the least of these in a negative way.
And yet, I know that when a movie character is constantly inserting Christ, God, and Jesus into the dialog (and it ain't for the purpose of praying)and involved in sex outside of marriage many of us are quick to judge, even if the overarching theme of the movie is about redemption, or exposing true evils.
Wow- it's invigorating to get this off my chest.
Peace be with you,
The Petester
Posted by: The Petester | February 15, 2008 1:38 PM
Don--I'd have to say in answer to your question, I have wondered that very same thing for awhile now. It would take me some thought to give much more of an answer than that, but I agree with your observation and concern.
Posted by: squeaky | February 15, 2008 1:41 PM
Wow Petester,
Thanks for your thoughts. I'm so happy you found grace.
Life is sweet, huh?
Jason
Posted by: Jason | February 15, 2008 3:36 PM
The Petester - Wow! That certainly was my observation while I was at church. We had so many people at church who would only talk to other Christians, listen to only "Christian" music & on & on. The only thing I think that was ever accomplished was that we kept the members of the church busy every waking moment with youth group activities, Bible studies, choir practice, etc.
Everyone was to afraid to step out of their "comfort zone". How can people like Donny ever minister to the people he is "yelling" at or who he is accusing of ruining the Christian life? He wants his children to go on missions trips, but his biggest fear is of the airport? Does he not understand that you are ministering to people who are NOT Christians?
Jesus ate with the sinners, etc. He told us not to judge each other, etc. Most of the people today that claim they are the "best" Christians would have been the first to crucify Jesus. It is very sad, but true.......
Posted by: mom4vr61 | February 15, 2008 3:44 PM
Thanks, Petester!
Posted by: squeaky | February 15, 2008 4:06 PM
Petester--
amen, and amen...your story is mine. thanks for articulating it so well.
Posted by: seeker-finder | February 15, 2008 4:59 PM
I appreciate the anecdote, and am sorry to hear of your condition. For me, fleeing from sexual sin and helping the poor is not an either/or. Sexual sin consumes us, as we make a series of compromises to sate our physical lusts.
Once we are compromised, we are unable to give fully to our church and to the community. Our hearts simply aren't there. But yes, it is inappropriate to view sexual purity as some sort of finish line. Of course, it might be awfully daunting to consider it a starting point.
The problem with Hollywood's representation of sex is that it is so often inconsequential. This demeanor does not reflect any sort of truth, associating any affection with a sexual act. In real life, this attitude has tremendous consequences.
Posted by: kevin s. | February 15, 2008 10:01 PM
kevin s: "The problem with Hollywood's representation of sex is that it is so often inconsequential. This demeanor does not reflect any sort of truth, associating any affection with a sexual act. In real life, this attitude has tremendous consequences."
A profound insight. That's exactly why I was disgusted with sex in movies long before I turned my life back over to God.
Posted by: carl copas | February 16, 2008 3:16 PM
Donny, Mark, Kevin, I can't believe this but I agree with all of what you have wrote. While I am a classic and foreign film buff, it is really hard for me to appreciate most of what comes out of Hollywood now. So much that I didn't even bother reading this article until just now. And I really agree about the self-centeredness of most show-business folks, whether in movies, music, whatever. Like the old Steely Dan song says, "Show business kids making movies of themselves, you know they don't give a #$%& about anybody else." If they really wanted to make a change in the world they probably could, but they rarely do.
Posted by: I and I | February 16, 2008 4:26 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?