HOLLYWOOD'S NEWEST ASSUALT ON JESUS

Religion in TV, Movies, Books, etc.

Moderator: Moderators

1John2_26
Guru
Posts: 1760
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:38 pm
Location: US

HOLLYWOOD'S NEWEST ASSUALT ON JESUS

Post #1

Post by 1John2_26 »

The newest offering from Hollywood of the Christian life:

The Book of Daniel.

A drug addict minister, and a daughter that's a drug dealer, a wife that is an alcoholic and OF COURSE a Gay son.

Will Hollywood ever stop the assault on Christianty?
‘Book of Daniel' Called ‘Bigotry'
Dave Eberhart, NewsMax.com
Wednesday, Jan. 4, 2006


NBC's kick-off this Friday of its new sitcom "The Book of Daniel" has some Christian groups outraged with the show and what some believe is a blasphemous portrayal of Jesus Christ.
Though the show has yet to air, Christian groups are getting "Daniel's" take on traditional Christianity – and they don't like it.
For example, the star of the series, actor Aidan Quinn (the serious politician brother to Brad Pitt's wilder character in "Legends of the Fall"), recently described his latest venture to the Associated Press:
"I'm an Episcopalian priest who struggles with a little self-medication problem, and I have a 23-year-old son who's gay, and a 16-year-old daughter who's caught dealing pot, and another son who's jumping on every high school girl he sees, and a wife who's very loving but also likes her martinis."
Quinn, who plays the Episcopal Rev. Daniel Webster, defended the show, saying the series is "a pretty down-the-middle, wholesome show."
But the Rev. Donald Wildmon, head of the influential American Family Association (AFA), has been unimpressed with such disclaimers and has been asking visitors to his Web site to e-mail NBC Universal Chairman Bob Wright to complain about "Daniel."
"We are told in Hebrews that ‘Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever,'" a form letter at the site explains. "Obviously you don't believe that. It would be beneficial to all if NBC showed a little more respect for Christians who believe the Bible."
In a press release, the AFA said the show "is an example of that network's anti-Christian bigotry." The AFA has already flooded NBC with more than 500,000 complaint emails, the group says.
To better understand Wildmon's beef requires some more background on the show's plot:
Every now and then, Rev. Daniel has a man-to-man chat with a contemporary Jesus, played by Garret Dillahunt ("Deadwood"). Jesus appears only to the reverend.
David DiCerto, who is on the staff of the Office for Film and Broadcasting of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, doesn't condemn the device of the latter day Jesus, but in his recent review perhaps fleshes out what rubs Wildmon the wrong way:
"More sounding board than savior, the show's down-to-earth Jesus, though portrayed with reasonable reverence, is tolerant to the point of being blasé: He has a problem with Rev. Webster's pill-popping but dismissively shrugs off Rev. Webster's kids having casual sex in the back seats of cars. On a more commendable note, the writers avoid making Jesus give pat answers to life's often complex problems."
Jack Kenny, the creator and an executive producer of "Daniel," told the New York Times recently that a walking, talking Jesus simply embodies Daniel's faith.
As if the good reverend doesn't have enough on his plate, the ongoing plot is thickened with a felonious brother-in-law absconding with $3 million in church funds.
This is an innocuous enough plot twist – except for the unhappy fact that it opens the door to what some critics see as unhealthy stereotyping.
DiCerto finds troubling the depiction of Rev. Daniel's Catholic counterpart, Father Frankie (Dan Hedaya), an Italian priest with organized crime connections whom Rev. Webster asks to help find the stolen money.
Case in point - some of the dialogue between a gay mobster and Rev. Daniel: "You got a problem, you come to the Catholics."
Despite the brouhaha, the official NBC reaction – released in a statement – has been understated, emphasizing among other things that few of the show's critics have actually seen a complete pilot episode.
"‘The Book of Daniel' is a fictional drama about an Episcopalian priest's family and the contemporary issues with which they must grapple," the statement reads.
"We're confident that once audiences view this quality drama themselves, they'll appreciate this thought-provoking examination of one American family."
But the AFA remained unmoved by the NBC public relations offensive, stepping up its campaign to include a boycott of the show's sponsors. Last Friday the group sent out an e-mail alert noting that it had identified 10 potential sponsors of the show and asking its members to embargo them.
The Daniel controversy comes on the heels of Parents Television Council (PTC) president L. Brent Bozell's yuletide lambasting of Hollywood's approach to faith.
"During this holy time of year, Hollywood has once again proven how out of step they are with mainstream America by launching an all-out attack on not just religion, but some of the most fundamental tenets of the Christian faith."
PTC and Bozell highlighted three shows:
• An episode of Comedy Central's "South Park," which aired in December, in which a character claims to have been sprayed by blood from a Virgin Mary statue.
• A Comedy Central special (aired multiple times in December) in which Denis Leary talks about the origins of Christmas using obscene language.
• An ABC episode of "Boston Legal" in which a priest is shown printing and selling counterfeit papal blessings and concealing the whereabouts of a pedophile.
"These examples clearly show that Hollywood treats religious icons with utter disrespect. Religious persons of all faiths should beware. Everyone who subscribes to cable is subsidizing content such as this," blasted Bozell.
As for "The Book of Daniel," a spokesperson for Bozell, Kelly Oliver, told NewsMax: "We're waiting to reserve comment on that show until after it airs (and possibly after more than one episode) in order to make a fair judgment."
"Daniel" starts Friday with a two-hour special episode at 8 p.m. and is then scheduled to air weekly at 9 p.m. on Fridays.

User avatar
ST88
Site Supporter
Posts: 1785
Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2004 11:38 pm
Location: San Diego

Re: HOLLYWOOD'S NEWEST ASSUALT ON JESUS

Post #2

Post by ST88 »

1John2_26 wrote:The Book of Daniel.

A drug addict minister, and a daughter that's a drug dealer, a wife that is an alcoholic and OF COURSE a Gay son.

Will Hollywood ever stop the assault on Christianty?
That depends on what you deem an "assault on Christianity". I've seen the show a couple of times, and I can see where some people might think it's offensive. It's not a particularly well-made or well-written show, which offends me as an artist. I fear that in trying to be shocking it has compromised what might have been a core of artistic integrity.

But as to religious concerns, where's the fire? An Episcopalian priest has a gay son. ** Yawn **. Dick Cheney has a gay daughter. Newt Gingrich has a gay sister. It's not out of the realm of possibility. The daughter got busted for trying to sell pot; the wife is possibly a closet alcoholic; the priest himself pops VICODIN -- a legal drug -- and converses with an apparition he takes to be Jesus. I thought it was quite clear that this apparition was a figment of his imagination and conscience. In all cases, ** Yawn **. It's like a poor-man's Picket Fences, where every cultural controversy happens to a small group of people. Such is the nature of television. No one would watch if everyone was sufficiently pious.

I get the feeling that those on the Right Wing have no idea what the purpose of entertainment is. We have a culture and a way of life. Our entertainment is supposed to show us the exceptions, the extremes that help us define our own values -- how extreme are we? What would we do in an extreme situation? The best entertainment challenges these notions of extremity and normality, shows us different worlds and how they operate.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that those on the Right are guilty of exactly what they have been slamming the Left for all these years: the knee-jerk reaction. Not even mentioned in the article is the fact that two bishops -- one of them married -- are having an affair. That is how you know that they either haven't seen the show, or don't wish to condemn adultery for their own reasons.

I hope that those who would criticize the entertainment media for religious potrayals would at least recognize the medium for what it was. My own confession here is that I wasn't going to watch this show, except for the stir. Which is, of course, exactly what NBC wanted. The knee-jerk Right has proven that it can be manipulated into viable Public Relations ploys. ** Yawn **
Every concept that can ever be needed will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings forgotten. -- George Orwell, 1984

1John2_26
Guru
Posts: 1760
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:38 pm
Location: US

Post #3

Post by 1John2_26 »

Adultery (oh hem) is condemned. That it is a passing thought now in Hollywood is of course, a very telling aspect of how far our entertainment culture has sunk.

Now denigrating Christians is a way to make money. Always a good idea in heavy metal. Though these cowards never bash Mohammad and Allah.

No way would Hollywood denigration be done with Jews and Muslims or, how about a show that really depicts the gay life of thousands of sordid sexual partners flailing away at each other in one of a thousand seedy places these "kinds of people" do their thing in.

That kind of entertainment mighty also be "educational" at the same time. Certainly would wake up people in the blood donor business.

User avatar
Chimp
Scholar
Posts: 445
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 5:20 pm

Post #4

Post by Chimp »

I predict it will go one season. It won't be because of a public outcry...it
will be because it gets crappy ratings.

Out of curiosity what TV shows do you watch, John?

User avatar
ST88
Site Supporter
Posts: 1785
Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2004 11:38 pm
Location: San Diego

Post #5

Post by ST88 »

1John2_26 wrote:Now denigrating Christians is a way to make money. Always a good idea in heavy metal. Though these cowards never bash Mohammad and Allah.

No way would Hollywood denigration be done with Jews and Muslims or, how about a show that really depicts the gay life of thousands of sordid sexual partners flailing away at each other in one of a thousand seedy places these "kinds of people" do their thing in.
You may be interested to know that for the first 60 years of its existence, Hollywood did bash homosexuals, Muslims, blacks, women, and numerous other "groups". It is still bashing Muslims to a certain extent. Anti-Semitism is a special case, largely because many Hollywood types were Jews. And still are. Still, anti-Semitism is a theme running through American culture, peaking perhaps in the 1920s and 30s, but still strong through the 60s as many American Jews were identified with Communism (big C).

You should be reminded that Christianity is the dominant culture, and as such it is a fair target. You probably don't realize what this means. When "groups" are singled out and discriminated against -- or "denigrated", as you say -- it is by the dominant culture. And there you go. Minority cultures can either take it silently or complain; and they need to shout loud enough so that people will hear them.

I'd like to think that American culture has somewhat matured from its stereotypes of ethnicities and cultures -- to the point where ANYONE can be portrayed as a drug addict or an adulterer.

As for the homosexual angle, you should watch movies from before the 1960s -- the undercurrent of many early movies is that homosexuals are evil, craven psychos. But of course, they couldn't even intimate that certain characters were gay, so the message is lost on those who can't recognize subtlety. The following movies have "menacing" or at least negative portrayals of purported homosexuals:
THE OLD DARK HOUSE
QUEEN CHRISTINA
STAGE DOOR
THE MALTESE FALCON
REBECCA
STRANGERS ON A TRAIN
ROPE
CAT ON A HOT TIN ROOF
RED RIVER
REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE
SUDDENLY LAST SUMMER
FROM HERE TO ETERNITY
THE CHILDREN'S HOUR

Again, I'd like to think that America has gotten past all that hoo-hah, and towards an approach that is based on individual characters rather than grand-swath stereotypes. But, of course, a lot of the time it's still hoo-hah. It's much easier to write characters that are stereotypes, and it's a convenient shorthand for the audience to identify which particular ax the filmmaker has to grind.
Every concept that can ever be needed will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings forgotten. -- George Orwell, 1984

User avatar
Bugmaster
Site Supporter
Posts: 994
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 7:52 am
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #6

Post by Bugmaster »

ST88 wrote:The following movies have "menacing" or at least negative portrayals of purported homosexuals:
THE OLD DARK HOUSE
QUEEN CHRISTINA
STAGE DOOR
THE MALTESE FALCON
REBECCA
STRANGERS ON A TRAIN
ROPE
CAT ON A HOT TIN ROOF
RED RIVER
REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE
SUDDENLY LAST SUMMER
FROM HERE TO ETERNITY
THE CHILDREN'S HOUR
Aw, I haven't seen any of these, except for The Maltese Falcon... Who was gay in that movie ? I haven't seen it for so long.

But now you've got me interested. Which of these movies would you actually recommend, on their artistic/entertainment merits ? I'd like to watch some, if I have time.

User avatar
ST88
Site Supporter
Posts: 1785
Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2004 11:38 pm
Location: San Diego

Post #7

Post by ST88 »

Bugmaster wrote:
ST88 wrote:The following movies have "menacing" or at least negative portrayals of purported homosexuals:
THE OLD DARK HOUSE
QUEEN CHRISTINA
STAGE DOOR
THE MALTESE FALCON
REBECCA
STRANGERS ON A TRAIN
ROPE ** The Leopold and Loeb story
CAT ON A HOT TIN ROOF **
RED RIVER
REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE
SUDDENLY LAST SUMMER
FROM HERE TO ETERNITY **
THE CHILDREN'S HOUR
Aw, I haven't seen any of these, except for The Maltese Falcon... Who was gay in that movie ? I haven't seen it for so long.

But now you've got me interested. Which of these movies would you actually recommend, on their artistic/entertainment merits ? I'd like to watch some, if I have time.
I recommend these:
STAGE DOOR ** An all-women's tenement in 1930s New York
THE MALTESE FALCON ** Peter Lorre's phallic cane
REBECCA ** some "terrible secret" between two female characters is never revealed
ROPE ** The Leopold and Loeb story
CAT ON A HOT TIN ROOF ** Why is Paul Newman drinking?
SUDDENLY LAST SUMMER ** total misunderstanding of homosexuality
FROM HERE TO ETERNITY ** Undercurrents of "for the guys"
Every concept that can ever be needed will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings forgotten. -- George Orwell, 1984

User avatar
Bugmaster
Site Supporter
Posts: 994
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 7:52 am
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #8

Post by Bugmaster »

Aw come on ! A gay cane ? Now you're reaching. If you go down that route, then everything everywhere is a homosexual reference. I think your criteria are too loose.

User avatar
ST88
Site Supporter
Posts: 1785
Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2004 11:38 pm
Location: San Diego

Post #9

Post by ST88 »

Bugmaster wrote:Aw come on ! A gay cane ? Now you're reaching. If you go down that route, then everything everywhere is a homosexual reference. I think your criteria are too loose.
Watch the movie again and regard Lorre's use of the cane. It's not just that it's a phallic object (after all, that is a generally heterosexual symbol as well), it's the way he insinuates his proclivities with it. Remember that at this time in history, Hollywood was unable to refer to homosexuality directly, and so references were largely wink wink nudge nudge.
Every concept that can ever be needed will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings forgotten. -- George Orwell, 1984

1John2_26
Guru
Posts: 1760
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:38 pm
Location: US

Post #10

Post by 1John2_26 »

Watch the movie again and regard Lorre's use of the cane. It's not just that it's a phallic object (after all, that is a generally heterosexual symbol as well), it's the way he insinuates his proclivities with it. Remember that at this time in history, Hollywood was unable to refer to homosexuality directly, and so references were largely wink wink nudge nudge.
Hollywood Babylon. It's been called that for a long time.

Anyway Daniel was cancelled. We'll have to await the Academy Awards for the next round of Christian-bashing Hollywood style.

Post Reply