MPAA Gone PC
In an era of "ratings creep" -- that is, when films that once would have been rated "R" for the sex or violence now receive "PG" or even less restrictive ratings -- it's noteworthy that the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) would decide to saddle a "G" film with a "PG" rating, instead.
The reason? Because the film, "Facing the Giants," contains Christian themes, according to this piece by Bruce Feirstein:
As the MPAA explained to Kris Fuhr, Provident Films vice president for marketing: “The movie was heavily laden with messages from one religion, and this might offend people from other religions. We alert parents to something that isn’t in their religion. Parents are very sensitive about having their kids exposed to religious material.”
Ah, it's all for the parents, you see. The same parents who, to believe the MPAA's ratings, have no problem with their children being exposed to ever more graphic depictions of sex -- but are terribly worried about their being exposed to Christian doctrine.
Ha. The MPAA had better find a more credible excuse.
The reason? Because the film, "Facing the Giants," contains Christian themes, according to this piece by Bruce Feirstein:
As the MPAA explained to Kris Fuhr, Provident Films vice president for marketing: “The movie was heavily laden with messages from one religion, and this might offend people from other religions. We alert parents to something that isn’t in their religion. Parents are very sensitive about having their kids exposed to religious material.”
Ah, it's all for the parents, you see. The same parents who, to believe the MPAA's ratings, have no problem with their children being exposed to ever more graphic depictions of sex -- but are terribly worried about their being exposed to Christian doctrine.
Ha. The MPAA had better find a more credible excuse.
posted by LadybugUSA at 11:08 AM
17 Comments:
"...but are terribly worried about their being exposed to Christian doctrine."
And many of those Christian parents would be very agitated if a film similarly laden with Muslim messages slipped under their radar and into their kids' heads.
yeah, they seem to be clearly different messages. America was founded upon, and will only continue to be great with Judeo-Christian values as the basis. You have every right to disagree. But there are many examples of your liberal ideas tearing down societies - of course, if you like the idea of mandatory military service for all, even women, then Sweden might fit the bill...
The point here being, this movie would have been G rated throughout the history of American movie making, until recent pressure from Political Correctness reared it UGLY head. Do you embrace PC Duke?
It hurts to say this, but Wrabkin does have a valid point
Guess it's time to ban jill from the site, so she can go over to Kos and scream "Censorship" about Carol.
and evidently, Alan was right.
and *sigh*, wrabkin was right this time too...
Here's a synopsis of the film from its official website:
From the award winning producers of FLYWHEEL, comes an action-packed drama about a Christian high school football coach who uses his undying faith to battle the giants of fear and failure. In six years of coaching, Grant Taylor has never led his Shiloh Eagles to a winning season. After learning that he and his wife Brooke face infertility, Grant discovers that a group of fathers are secretly organizing to have him dismissed as head coach. Devastated by his circumstances, he cries out to God in desperation. When Grant receives a message from an unexpected visitor, he searches for a stronger purpose for his football team. He dares to challenge his players to believe God for the impossible on and off the field. When faced with unbelievable odds, the Eagles must step up to their greatest test of strength and courage. What transpires is a dynamic story of the fight between faith and fear. Facing the Giants is a powerful experience for the whole family inspiring viewers to live with faith, hope, and love!
As an evangelical Christian, I would not recommend this film - there is nothing about Christ, and there is nothing in the bible about success as a result of great faith.
Let me reiterate.
The message portrayed in this film is "if you have enough faith and self belief, you can achieve anything".
That is NOT a biblical point of view. It is NOT part of "Judeo-Christian values". It's simply a part of American "believe in yourself" glurge with God and prayer tacked onto it.
I don't care if it's rated PG or not. No one should see it because of the false message it is communicating.
PC is all relative, COPioneer. I've worked beside (and for) many men who consider the disuse of the N-word to be PC. So maybe I am a little "PC." (I confess to having no idea what Sweden and mandatory military service have to do with anything.)
But to address your point, although I am a Christian I do not feel the need to view everything through a Judeo-Christian lens. There are others among us. I neither bow to them nor ask them to bow to me.
Come on, Jill. You do yourself or your ideology no good with this childishness.
Surely you can do better.
>>...although I am a Christian I do not feel the need to view everything through a Judeo-Christian lens.>>
How can you do otherwise? either you're a Christian or you're not. If you _are_, then you _must_ view things through a Christian lens. You certainly may try to put yourself in the place of someone who is not Christian and attempt to view things from their perspective, but they're going to have different basic assumptions than you have.
Besides...if you're Christian, why _shouldn't_ you view things as a Christian?
>>...an action-packed drama about a Christian high school football coach who uses his undying faith to battle the giants of fear and failure.>>
It _does_ seem a bit bizarre that a film about a Christian coach who uses his faith to inspire his team should lose its GP rating because it's heavily laden with religious messages - I mean....that _is_ the whole point of the film. Sort of like trying to show a John Wayne western without the guns...
PC-wise, it's true, it's okay for a black man to call another black man nigger (and they do). See, it's not PC to NOT write "N-word"...but I'm about as far from a racist as you can imagine. I would never dispariage anyone's race with those type of epithets.
As for the movie, I don't know why OSO wouldn't recommend it. It's not terrible or forbidden to love yourself as long as you love God 1st - and love your neighbor as yourself.
If they make a movie on Lance Armstrong, I wouldn't prohibit my kids from seeing it. And he believes entirely in his ability to overcome with human will. He's a better role model than many, even though he might be an athiest (I don't know for sure).
Sweden and military service have to do with what happens when liberalism reigns supreme - as just one of the issues facing liberal governments, that I don't think liberals in America would agree with.
"PC-wise, it's true, it's okay for a black man to call another black man nigger (and they do)."
It's NOT okay. Just because some of the most ignorant black people do does not mean it's okay. They're just showing THEIR ignorance and lack of any appreciation for what their forefathers had to endure. There is debate within the black community about this very issue, but unfortunately the voices of reason fall on ears deafened by hip hop.
Sweden may serve as an example of what happens when liberalism reigns supreme. However, at the other end of the spectrum, where religious conservatism reigns supreme, is Iran. So let's avoid portraying each other with ideological extremes which neither of us endorse.
And suek, "either you're a Christian or you're not" is bait I will not take. I will not be badered onto the bully bandwagon.
...badgered...
>>And suek, "either you're a Christian or you're not" is bait I will not take.>>
No bait _was_ offered. You stated that you are a Christian. If you have an argument with my statement, it would have to do with the being a Christian and also being able to see the world as a non-Christian would. If you are in fact, _not_ a Christian, then my quibble would be that you could not then view the world as a Christian would. The problem is not what you _are_, but that you claim to be able to view the world from the view of something that you are not. I don't think that's possible. Whatever you are, your view will be affected by the underlying assumptions of that viewpoint.
>> I will not be badgered onto the bully bandwagon.>>
I don't understand what this means.
"I don't understand what this means."
My point was that the statement "you're either a Christian or you're not" is similar to Bush's "you're either with us or against us," a taunt that is intended to eliminate any discourse and make the picture appear to be a black and white one. Cooler heads are not allowed; only passionate, emotion-based gut instinct is permitted to enter into our collective decision-making.
Sure, in a pure dissection of the statement, we ARE either Christians or we're NOT. But in context, I took it to mean that I must "side" with the bullies who believe that the Judeo-Christian bias should permeate everything, everywhere. And if I don't, then my Christianity is called into question.
This is not a new tactic. Fortunately, I am immune to it.
(I'll catch you all later. I have errands to run, kids to chauffeur, terrorist pep rallies to attend.)
>>My point was that the statement "you're either a Christian or you're not" is similar to Bush's "you're either with us or against us," a taunt that is intended to eliminate any discourse and make the picture appear to be a black and white one. Cooler heads are not allowed; only passionate, emotion-based gut instinct is permitted to enter into our collective decision-making.>>
I've thought about your response on this - it's interesting. Just how is it a "taunt"? how does it eliminate discourse? would you not agree that regardless of the amount of discourse than one might have on any issue, at the end of the day, you have to come down on one side or the other? Can you be both a Christian and a non-Christian at the same time? switch from one to the other from week to week?
I don't think that asking someone to take a position is a bad thing. In most cases, it _is_ a matter of black or white - though your process of getting there may not be. You can also change your mind - though I'd have no respect for someone who does that on a whim rather than for good reason. You can be still undecided - often with good reason. In the end, though, you either travel through life sitting on the fence, or you find a position which is going to be either a or b.
In other words, your objection is irrational.
Post a Comment
<< Home