Hollywood Gets More Religious?
by Big Hollywood
…so says Robert Butler in yesterday’s Washington Post:
It’s everywhere at the multiplex these days: religion. Or if that word makes you uncomfortable, you can go with the more general “spirituality.”
In movies as varied as the dead serious “The Road,” the uplifting family picture “The Blind Side,” the biting comedy “The Invention of Lying” and even James Cameron’s sci-fi opus “Avatar,” issues of faith and morality and mankind’s place in the universe are all the rage.
Not all of these movies embrace religion. Some question human gullibility. Some ask for evidence of a higher purpose in what often seems a random universe. But whether they encourage prayer or doubt, they’re all part of the zeitgeist.
But why now?
“There are two schools of thought about that,” said Greg Wright, an editor at HollywoodJesus.com, which examines popular culture from a religious perspective.
“The more paranoid elements of our culture tend to think Hollywood has a proactive agenda, that producers have a grand scheme to use movies to shape the thinking of audiences. I don’t subscribe to that school.
“I believe that Hollywood gives audiences what audiences want to see. If people don’t want to see movies with certain messages, they won’t buy tickets.
Read the full article here.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
74 Comments
Saw Avatar in 3-D this weekend. Dazzling, grpund-breaking FX. Noy as dumb as I thought, although there are plenty of issues, both logical and political, that were off-putting.
Now, about Hollywood finding religion? Yeah, for a price. Don't want to cynical, but if Hollywood could make a money selling ice to Inuits (that's Eskimos to the un-PC crowd), it would, with butter and favored options extra.
Those in charge of Hollywood are anti-Christianity. Why else did no one jump on the financial-success bandwagon of Mel Gibson's "Passion"?
[...] Hollywood Gets More Religious? This entry is filed under America – Blogs, Big Hollywood. You can follow any responses to this [...]
Religious films are best when religion isn't the topic. That's why 'Going My Way' with Bing Crosby works.
HollywoodJesus? Are you kidding me? Sure, there's more religion in Hollywood these days, it's called paganism. The only mention of True Christianity is ,99.999% of the time, to malign the religion and its followers.
Hollywood's idea of religion and those who believe it is far different from that of Middle America. Even most of the films listed later in the article were so non-religious that people had to scramble around for ways to make them seem like they could possibly, maybe, perhaps if looked at in a certain light when you turn it upside down, be considered religious. I wouldn't get too excited by the idea of Hollywood becoming more spiritual, especially if, like most of America, your religion happens to be some sect of Christianity.
Hollywood has produced several films about faith lately. Here's just a partial list:
The 11th Hour (2007) Narrated by Leonardo DiCaprio… a documentary about global warming
An Inconvenient Truth (2006) with Al Gore… a documentary about global warming
The Day After Tomorrow (2004)… a film about the destruction of earth caused by global warming and global cooling (I guess that would be "Climate Change")
Waterworld (1995) with Kevin Costner… a film about the end of civilization due to flooding caused by global warming melting the ice caps
See? There's lots of movies based on faith. They sure aren't based on facts.
Um… they did. New Line Cinema fast-tracked a big-budget, ultra-traditional (right down to a really gorgeous score mostly comprised of familiar instrumental hymnal music) version of "The Nativity Story" and released it right smack in the middle of the Christmas season with MASSIVE promotion on "conservative" talk-radio (one of the radio ads actually used "the reason for the season" quote) and in the Christian media…
…it opened lukewarm, big dud, quickly vanished from the boxoffice. The "Passion" effect didn't re-manifest. Why? Because whatever the intentions of the film initially, the mega-success of "The Passion" was NEVER about the movie or even about Jesus – it was about "sticking it" to the imaginary Jewish-Controlled-Media-Conspiracy. (By the same basic principal, nobody went to see "An Inconvenient Truth" because it was such compelling filmmaking, it's about ticket-sales-as-a-political-statement.)
As someone here mentioned on some other thread, "Hollywood" is PLENTY religious/spiritual. There are almost no movies with outright atheism as a theme, and when it is it's almost NEVER presented as a net-positive. In addition, by definition every film dealing with the supernatural is "spiritual" in it's very essence.
The default morality of 99% of all fiction in the Western world is a general "boiling down" of the Judeo-Christian outlook, "do unto others," "good is it's own reward," etc… though often the specifics are swapped-out for invented systems that superficially resemble neo-paganism (Harry Potter, Avatar, LOTR, every other horror movie.) Meanwhile, the ever-popular imports from Asia are soaked with the casual Buddhism that informs Hong Kong/Chinese and Korean popular cinema or the secular-Shintoism of Japan, while the Hindu understanding of morality informs every facet of Bollywood.
(continued)
When you start with a base line of zero then 1 becomes too many films about religion, if thats your take.
Most of the well known critics are based on the coasts with the exception possibly Chicago
which are predominately liberal cities with liberal critics. Flyover country being under represented
in many areas, movie influence being just one of them, while they can dominate at the box office.
Lets face it, liberal critics are complaining about Christianity. The accurate portrayal of
Christ and his word are rarely if ever portrayed in the movies. The fact that it is mention rankles them
not the way it is portrayed unless it approaches the truth and I understand "Blind Side" does
that. Dcase above may have made my comment redundant, but I read his too late to delete mine.
(continued)
The question is never whether Hollywood will get more religious, it's whether or not it's going to get more CHRISTIAN-conservative… and the answer is no. And for that I'm glad. I don't really care what ideology a movie has, but the modern conservative-christian movement has demonstrated itself unable to make good movies – and furthermore, their various moral hangups generally mean they can't even make FUN bad movies.
The faux-buddhists, neo-pagans, humanists and "generic spiritualism" folks, whatever their other foibles, know how to put on a show, so they can stay in charge forever as far as I'm concerned.
2nd that, if it were all about money they would make more movies with positive Christian themes or even themes about God.
But they do have their own agenda don't they and it is apparent.
But the main problem "The Nativity Story" had in reaching audiences was that it was an earnest bore, and it had no movie stars pull to attract audiences. "The Passion" was at its heart a well made film, assuming you could stomach the bloodiness.
I believe Mel Gibson would disagree.
I remember when it came out, I don't recall if it ever made it to my cable movie channels, if not, I've probably never seen it. Which says something, if I can't even remember seeing it.
My experience with Biblical movies is they all seem so two dimensional, as if trying to recapture the experience of the 10 Commandments. It worked for DeMille because it was new, different, his vision. But from the time the curtain goes up and DeMille starts his speech, you can feel the passion he felt for the project.
Most others have the feel of a lector reciting an Old Testament reading during Mass when I was a kid. Boring. It's almost as if writers, directors and actors are merely rehashing old interpretations, rather than trying to invent a new vision.
Granted when it comes to a story like the Nativity, there's not a lot of wiggle room for maneuvering because most people who are Christians have the story so down pat, the slightest change is going to stand out like a sore thumb.
But there's also a wealth of other stories in the Bible. I've seen decent ones, like Ruth, but what about every thing else? How about the second exile in Babylonia? Or Isiah? How about the fall of Jerusalem to Nebuchadnezzar? How about the re-dedication of the Temple? Considering the life of St. Paul, I don't know how anyone could come up with a movie as bad as the last one.
I remember, but so what? It was a smash hit with Christians. Every body was talking about it. I was even asked by an elderly team member if I'd cover the pager for him so he and his wife could see it. I did. He asked if I saw it. I said no, I read the book.
The point is to create movies that viewers want to see, screw Hollywood and the Press. Attracting eye balls is the name of the game.
I would agree but add it can be about religion, but not like a Sunday school class in theology. Tell the story at the bottom of the religion, then let the viewers interpret the religious part as they want, individually.
When I write something (total amateur, never sold anything, never tried), I don't start with a concept like "this will be a moral story about the evils of adultery.' I start with 'okay, here's the characters, here's the situation,' and then let it flow on its own.
Read the book by Micheal Medved about Hollywood, G and PG movies make more money because more people can get in to see them, if Hollywood was giving us what we wanted they wouldn't make acclaimed/shocking movies that sell nothing, they would give us great G and PG entertainment and make loads of money! They wouldn't have put Clean Flicks out of business who were purchasing a DVD from Hollywood and then taking the smut out so families could see them, just like they do for the airlines, if they wanted to give us "what we wanted" or just make money I could buy the PG version of R movies off of the rack. Yes, ask Mel Gibson about his big money maker that they had no interest in.
avatar is nothing more than a condemnation of corporate america and the military to brainwash the young into a mother earth based religious movement for the "environment. Greenies are nothing but watermelons green on the outside and red on the inside, for the redistribution of wealth. Real bottom line is to weaken destroy the US for holding the line against socialism for the last 40 years.
I would disagree only slightly in that I thought Facing the Giants was a great little movie.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0805526/
I think the issue with most conservative-christian movies is from day one, the goal is evangelizing the audience, then the story comes on top of that. They should start with a story first, and if the story happens to contain religious elements, they go on top of the story, not shape it.
In “Tell the story at the bottom of the religion,” I’ll go back to “Going My Way.” In the film, Crosby’s character practices what he preaches. He is what he is, in that he consoles and advices but doesn’t have to give up who is he is, that is he is a singer, while remaining a priest in good standing.
Seeing a religion, as practiced, shouldn’t leave room for ‘audience interpretation,’ though I do agree that a story should not be created beginning with a morality theme, but the theme can grow of its own accord, within the story.
A story may start out looking like cold calculated adultery, but maybe the marriage is a failure to begin with and the reasons for adultery can be explored, but that is how a story can grow, and not have to be planned.
It is kind of hard to do any accurate portrayal of Christ, seeing as each of the 4 Gospels has essentially a different version of him. And other than the really big events, crucifixion and resurrection, all four don't agree on a lot of events. So if you pull just selected items from this one or that one, you get a disjointed view.
Perhaps better quality production would result if a writer picked just one?
Agreed, you did a better job of explaining what I meant than I did.
Easy pickins.
While each branch of religion, if you will, have different takes on what constitutes
their idea of the correct interpretation of the bible some aspects are pretty much
universal in agreement. The 10 comandments, the resurection of Christ etc. but
these for the most part are not shown accurately. In reel life as in real life
Christianity is to be debased by a slight turn here or a major twist there.
It won't change no matter how we protest or even pay major bucks at the ticket window
in support. Unless a Christian based studio can produced major budgeted movies.
I won't hold my breath.
I think one reason Hollywood won't touch Bible stories these days is because of the Israeli/Palestinian situation. If they portray ancient Jews as heroes, they get pilloried by the left. If they portray them as villains, they pilloried by Christians and accused of anti-semitism. Even though there's loads of adventure, sex and violence in the Old Testament – in between all the stuff about God – I'm not sure Hollywood could handle it without warping the material out of all recognition. Or trying to send a contemporary message that has nothing to do with the original Message. The Nativity is pretty safe ground – hard to turn that into postmodern PC crap.
And sometimes you get the stupefyingly bad, like "One Night With the King." I think even sincere film makers are daunted with biblical topics because they're trying not to offend believers, as well as give the texts the gravity they feel they deserve. Others just throw pretty girls in skimpy harem outfits in front of the camera and pretend they have moral aspirations. And the truth is, a lot of the old bible movies, even the "classics" come off as incredibly stodgy. It takes a rare mix to make a novel biblical movie with wide appeal: a film maker who truly believes in the material, lots o' money, and media attention plus the ability to skillfully manipulate same. "Passion" had it, few others do.
Clean Flicks went out of business because they were altering other people's work without their permission, and making money off of it. Big difference between that and airline prints of movies.
Agreed. Ben Hur pulled it off too. I remember the first time I watched when I was little, I didn't even realize it was a religious movie till I got towards the end.
Barabbas with Anthony Quinn was excellent too. I only saw that once when I was about 12, and I still remember it clearly.
Funny thing is, though…I suspect a lot of people don't even realize how much smut and gore is in the Bible in between the God stuff, and would think a film would be heretically offensive if they put it in. (for example, everyone knows about Lot's wife and the pillar of salt…how many keep reading a few chapters later where the daughters get dad drunk and sleep with him so they can have kids?)
Actually, it's to be expected. It's like the Democrats skidding to the center to get elected, then making Lenin look conservative once they're in office (see Obama). Hollywood spent eight years dissing George Bush, middle Americans, Conservatives, Republicans, Religion in ORDER to get Obama elected. Now that they have a genuine Marxist as president, it's expected that they'd try to recoup some of their losses (petty of the religious, conservatives, Republicans etc to stop going to movies just because they were being bashed, doncha think?). If we fall for this, we're the real fools. And besides, didn't "The Blind Side" take a gratuitous slap at Bush and/or Republicans?
Exactly. As the Washington Post article notes, surprise hit films like Fireproof were produced outside the Hollywood studio system by independent Christian studios.
So, who really needs Hollywood?
It was a slap at Bush.
That said, at Tea Party protests over the summer, I met more than a few God-fearing conservatives who resented Bush's liberal views on government spending and illegal immigration. Hence, such conservatives likely got a good chuckle out of that scene.
Excellent Post. Don't forget "Avatar".
I had an interesting conversation with a Parisian during the holidays. We were discussing the country's ban on the hajib (or whatever that head rag is called) which she was against (not the hajib – the ban). She commented something about "the" Christians wearing crosses (which I believe also is banned, but she didn't mention that) in a sneering, snarky tone. She wasn't Jewish or Muslim and I don't think she was an Athiest or an Agnostic — just a real, honest to God European SECULARIST. I didn't ask her about The Church of the Holy Smoke (Holy Smoke! the Earth is warming; Holy Smoke the seas are rising; Holy Smoke the bears are drowning; Holy Smoke—) but I'd bet a dollar to a donut that was her true faith. And we wonder why Europe will be Eurabia by 2025? You can't beat something with nothing.
Check out Facing Giants. It's about a terrible high school football team with a new coach who happens to be Christian.
Rather than evangelize the kids on the team, he leads by example, through plenty of ups and downs. And by following his example, the kids start to come around, and I'm not going to spoil it for you. I thought it was a good script and good actors.
That's my idea of a good religious movie. I don't feel like I've been beaten over the head by the moral. Primarily I want entertainment that does not insult my intelligence.
I have the same issue with evangelicals who use the rapture to scare people into becoming Christians. Makes mewant to grab them by the collar and shake some sense into them.
"Yes, ask Mel Gibson about his big money maker that they had no interest in."
…uhm, you mean the one that was Rated… R?
You guys are hilarious.
Hollywood has the agenda of those who are powerful in Hollywood. Progressive secularists.
Please keep in mind that this is the same crowd that defended, to ridiculous extents, the child rapist Roman Polanski.
There is an agenda, but they aren't stupid. The aim to destroy and discredit traditional values has not changed, just the tactics. Overt attacks on conservative values stopped doing well in the box offices (because there are more conservatives outside of Hollywood than there are progressives inside of Hollywood).
The new tack will be to recognize the validity of 'spirituality' but to paint traditional values as irrelevant, out of touch, and unenlightened. This has been going on for decades.
In how many television shows and movie does much of the comedic relief revolve around a bumbling father? One way of keeping the slaves suppressed was the humiliate (and sometimes CASTRATE) alpha males in the slave communities. Much of the awol-father culture that is observed in inner-cities is a direct result of this.
If you can destroy the traditional roles (father as familial head), the values that accompany a traditional world view are significantly weakened. What follows are hedonism and chaos.
Look to the inner city if you don't believe me.
Hollywood has a religion allright – it's called $$$$.
That's fine, just don't expect Christianity to get too fair a shake from these jackals.
Islam is the "in" religion currently. It is or a vestbomber will "KILL" 'em. So says Allah!
IntenseDebate Notification <DIV>Sure , it's easy pickins' to malign a minority, et tu, Brutus?</DIV> <DIV style=\”FONT: 10pt arial\”>
Christianity is a minority? Is that what you're saying? In Pakistan maybe, not in America. 159 million strong in America.
It says a lot you paint it that way. Could be several reasons for that perspective, best of which is simple ignorance.
Positive portrayal of Christianity in Hollywood, I thought anyone with half of the cranial capacity of a cock roach could understand that, guess not. Sorry for the ad hominem,errrr, no I'm not, as it seems to be your SOP, POS.
All I know is "The Blind Side" is an excellent movie, portraying a conservative family as a kind and generous one. It was a joy to attend such a movie.
The Nativity Story didn´t do well, but THAT never stopped Hollywood from trying again and again.
Star Wars spawned Battle beyond the Stars, the Black Hole, Saturn 3, Krull, The Last Starfighter, Starchaser, the Battlestar Galactica and Buck Rogers tv series… the list goes on, few of them any good and most of them bombs.
The misunderstanding is that secular people (I count myself among them) are more rational and empirical when in fact the saying is proven correct: They don´t believe in nothing, they believe in anything. The public "discourse" is dominated mostly by fantasy problems like health, food and climate scares (which deep inside nobody fears) at the expense of actual problems like nuclear proliferation or economic stagnation (which is unpleasant to think about). I say, at least Christianity is proven. What is desirable in our civilisation was mainly built over centuries by Christians (who were of course also businessmen, inventors, statesmen, philosophers or soldiers). And that is an empirical fact.
Hollywood most definitely has an agenda….
And don't be fooled by these so-called 'films of faith'. Sure, 'The Blind Side' is about moral redemption, and the other mentioned titles have philosophical themes- but nothing even close to spirituality is being advocated; unless it's the goony Gaia worship od 'Avatar',or the nihilistic meanderings of 'The Road'.
Dose anyone think a film can be made with any embrace of Christianity? A real, honest to goodness exploration of say, WHY Christ died for our sins?
Didn't think so. Same with other beliefs- unless they somehow incorporate humanistic concerns. Nope, you are going to have to look elsewhere for that…
Mel had to fund the film himself. And he, along with the press took a beating from Hollywood and the MSM. Not many people can and even fewer are willing to do and suffer that.
Good points, Bugs.
The same can be said of many non-conservative-non-christian movies. What's the difference between making an entire movie to illustrate a left-wing economic, political or moral principle, and evangelizing the audience? Say, making an anti-war movie hoping that people will watch it and "convert" to an anti-war political stance.
I'll go out on a limb here and say there's only one proper Christian story for cinema or anything else. That's the story of a Christian trying to maintain his or her faith in the face of doubt and misfortune. Someone "accepting Jesus as their personal savior" is not the end of a story, it's the beginning.
Absolutely. (I gave you a thumbs up to get you out of negative territory. It's just the principle of the thing.)
No talent actors with pretty faces and bulging wallets?
Paganism and just plain anti-Christianity, IMO.
OK, here goes: I think people who diss Christianity primarily have been exposed to over-the-top portrayals of Christian fanatics. They do not know the teachings of the religion.
Plus: it is soooo non-PC to be Christian in the pseudo-intellectual world. I have family members who have been turned against their own Christian upbringings. Unsettling times we live in.
I've not heard of this movie, and I'm a Coen Brothers' fan.
hoho, the hulk, very huge
Why isn't anyone discussing the Coen Brother's "A Serious Man?"
Best made, non preachy religious film.
Well that would be because christianity is nothing but vile horse shit. Insulting the Gaia concept are you? That form of worship has been around since our caveman ancestors developed such higher ideas and its certainly more peaceful then paying slavish worship to some mystical sky-daddy with a bunch of arrogant commandments.
Because "A Serious Man" doesn't fit the presupposed thesis. It's a complex film that doesn't necessarily promote one religious view over another.
"“I believe that Hollywood gives audiences what audiences want to see. If people don’t want to see movies with certain messages, they won’t buy tickets."
AGREED! Don't over think this people. Hollywood is one of the crown jewels of our capitalist society. The free market drives their decisions 1000%.
Sure, they try things that fail… but its not because of an agenda, but because of a mis-read. Don't hold your breath for "Lions for Lambs Part 2".
so the heathens finally weigh in…
Good luck with the Gaia thing come a 'reckoning time…
yeah, 'The Passion' did sort of go there, didn't it?…
And then some. I still haven't seen it yet, hasn't made it to my cable movie channels.
Though I did read the book.
ho!
Read the book… you funny man. Yeah, it hasn't been on cable much last we checked…
the slap at Bush in 'Blindside' came AFTER the test screenings which were very positive, and inserted by director John Lee Hancock to keep his liberal creds intact. Cowardice comes in many forms…
Right, so first you say: "The only mention of True Christianity is ,99.999% of the time, to malign the religion and its followers. " Followed up by: "Sure , it's easy pickins' to malign a minority, et tu, Brutus?".
Yep, pretty easy to understand, probably a quarter of the cranial capacity of a cockroach would suffice (good thing I meet that standard). Don't get mad at me you have to back up from a delusional statement. And giving you the benefit, lets assume you really meant to originally express your excuse for saying something stupid, don't get mad at me you are challenged by standard English communication.
How does one malign the fact positive portrayal of Christianity in Hollywood is rare, anyway? Besides, wouldn't liberals celebrate that?
I'm just pickin on ya. i hope you can learn you're not perfect, sometimes you just have to accept it, step back, learn from it and move on stronger than before because of it. Thats how humans operate, thats reality despite what your political ideology would dictate.
Fine comments by William and Ed, but what about the very overtly religious and very popular "Moses"? I know, it was filmed in a different day and age, but it still remains superb and breathtaking in it's epic status and message, also, on a lesser scale, "Ben Hur"?
IntenseDebate Notification <DIV>I really don't believe that my statement was delusional as much as you didn't give pause to consider my intention, which, I can admit, should have been elucidated in a fashion so all could understand. I certainly understand that I am not perfect, I realise my failings on a daily basis.Thanks for being so understanding. God Bless…..Hanzo</DIV> <DIV style=\”FONT: 10pt arial\”>
Bob, I would have to say that most "spitiruality" in Hollywood is an attempt to rationalise or make more popular occultism, just my thought. Also,may I ask , what do you consider "moral hangups"?
"Bob, I would have to say that most "spitiruality" in Hollywood is an attempt to rationalise or make more popular occultism, just my thought."
I agree with that, though you and I would likely disagree on whether or not that's a bad thing.
" Also,may I ask , what do you consider "moral hangups"?"
Pretty much any behavioral "law" that no longer seems to have much logical application, gets in the way of self-actualization and impedes personal happiness that people are still pushing on others because it's in some sacred book or "traditional."
IntenseDebate Notification <DIV>Understood. While I may not agree with your views, thanks for your time……Hanzo</DIV> <DIV style=\”FONT: 10pt arial\”>
Hanzo, I haven’t seen "Moses," but I’m more than happy to take your word it. Now, "Ben Hur" I’ve viewed countless times, and that’s enough to say I shouldn’t have to elaborate.
There are a number of great, majestic and epic films, and there should be. They inspire. What I was considering were those ‘around the corner’ kinds of experiences, those faith-in-action stories. I mentioned ‘Going my Way,’ because it was the first one to come to mind.
Read was interesting, stay in touch……
[...]please visit the sites we follow, including this one, as it represents our picks from the web[...]……
Websites you should visit…
[...]below you’ll find the link to some sites that we think you should visit[...]……
… [Trackback]…
[...] Informations on that Topic: bighollywood.breitbart.com/bighollywood/2010/01/04/hollywood-gets-more-religious/ [...]…
… [Trackback]…
[...] There you will find 74422 more Infos: bighollywood.breitbart.com/bighollywood/2010/01/04/hollywood-gets-more-religious/ [...]…
You must be logged in to post a comment.