When I see you and Ted Baehr, I am reminded of the Christians who subscribed to a venomous legalism and said that eating meat sacrificed to idols was intrinsically sinful. Of course, I presume you know how Paul corrected them – let each man live his life according to his personal conscience and individual relationship with God. If he can eat that meat and still worship Christ unhindered, then by all means allow him to do so, while being sensitive to the potential struggles in a younger Christian (and notice that it’s the *younger* Christian who does the abstaining).

When Paul spoke in Athens, he not only familiarized himself with all the temples and idols and the Romans’ religious system; he even commended them for being religious people, who subconsciously longed to worship and befriend the Judeo-Christian God. Imagine that! Notice how he did not start off declaring, “You have followed the wrong religion, and you’re all going to Hell unless you follow Christ!” No, he pointed out the good aspects of the fervent belief in their religion, and seasoning his words with grace, gradually and convincingly presented the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Why on earth can we not do something similar with worldly movies?

Hellfire preaching has its place – Alice Cooper (yes, the rock star) actually became a Christian after listening to a hellfire type of sermon. But truth seasoned with grace is usually the way to go, especially if you personally have a problem with CT “endorsing” Sex and the City (actually, it was NOT an endorsement – why does one need to “endorse” every movie they like?!).

I am open to correction on any of these points, but I want you to have the same openness to being proven wrong, Ted. Read Proverbs 9:9 and get back to me. It could be that you are taking heat from fellow Christians because we are less spiritual or “in tune” or less mature, when compared to you. Or maybe it’s because you’re wrong, and we’re trying to point it out. Be very careful in evaluating which one it is.

This conversation is helpful.

Ted Slaters last blog post..So You Wanna Be a Freelancer

By “objective” reviewer, I mean one who approaches a movie more clinically, more critically, more analytically than someone who’s just passively watching a flick and then writing that they “enjoyed” it because it was a reunion of characters from a TV show they enjoyed.

Well, okay, no argument there, as far as that goes. I like reviews that point our attention to the thing being reviewed rather than to the person writing the review, myself. But I must also concede that people sometimes bring highly personal perspectives to their reviews that are better acknowledged than not-acknowledged. For example, I was 34 years old when I got married and lost my virginity, and this inevitably affected how I responded to The 40-Year-Old Virgin, so I made a point of mentioning that in my review for CT. Likewise, single Christian women may have a perspective on Sex and the City that men such as you and I do not have. “Objective” criticism is well and good, but we should be careful not to turn criticism into a game of disection or vivisection that loses sight of the life that can be had in enjoying and “receiving” a film.

Beyond that, it seems plausible to me that many of the “objective” critics you cite by way of Rotten Tomatoes are probably people who didn’t care for the TV show in the first place, so I’m not sure what their opinions of the film would be worth, really. Certainly I, as a Star Trek fan, will find reviews of any given Star Trek film more valuable or enlightening if they are written by people who “appreciate” the series as a whole. It is they, and not some caustic outsider, who can tell me whether and how a Star Trek movie lives up to the standard set by its predecessors. It is they, and not some caustic outsider, who can tell me what the strengths and weaknesses of the franchise really are, and whether the film tilts more to one side of that spectrum than the other.

Michael Medved’s way of reviewing movies influences the way I watch and evaluate them. Same with Ted Baehr at MovieGuide.org or Adam Holz at PluggedInOnline.org or someone at CT.

When a reviewer looks beyond themes of “forgiveness” and sees that no true “repentance” takes place, that prompts me to reconsider the surface messages and take a thoughtful look at underlying messages and themes.

When a reviewer says that they liked a movie because they liked the TV series, that they enjoyed it despite its pornographic imagery, that they found it more refreshing and relevant than their church friendships, how might that influence my movie-watching habits?

Ted Slaters last blog post..So You Wanna Be a Freelancer

By “objective” reviewer, I mean one who approaches a movie more clinically, more critically, more analytically than someone who’s just passively watching a flick and then writing that they “enjoyed” it because it was a reunion of characters from a TV show they enjoyed. I don’t care much about a mere subjective opinion; I want a review that digs into the themes and the consequential aspects of a film.

This, in my opinion, is how the professionals do it: http://www.boundlessline.org/2008/06/plugged-in-and.html

Ted Slaters last blog post..So You Wanna Be a Freelancer

Check out the reviews on RottenTomatoes.com to get a better idea of the vapid quality of this movie, a movie that seemingly only fans of the TV show could like. . . .

Most “objective” reviewers find the movie dull, not a quality piece of work . . .

What on earth is an “objective” reviewer, and why should we automatically trust a non-fan’s opinion of the movie more than a fan’s opinion of the movie?

I ask this as a life-long Trekkie who finds value even in some of the lamer Star Trek movies, and even though the vast majority of mainstream, “objective” critics would probably be quite happy to dismiss them out of hand.

Yes, the so-called “objective” reviews written by outsiders can give us perspective. But so can the reviews written by insiders.

Peter T Chattaways last blog post..Flashback: Sir Richard Attenborough, the Grey Owl interview

Just to make sure that we’re all on the same page, I went back and read CT’s response to all of the SATC criticism. In my opinion, this is the most important part of the article:

“…to slam us for reviewing the film makes no sense. Our mission statement is to help readers make discerning choices about movies — not to make the choices for people. Our review clearly warned readers of the sinful behavior in the movie, while also noting some of its redeeming factors — like the universal longing for love and companionship, what it means to be a true friend, and more.

But some folks believe that when it comes to a movie like Sex and the City, there should be no choice — they’ve decided that no one should see it, period … at least no one who calls themselves a Christian. They think we should essentially have a three-word review: ‘Don’t watch it!’ But that’s not what we’re about. We trust our readers to make their own decisions; we won’t make those decisions for anyone.”

However, I assume that this is the part of the article that you take issues with:

“But here’s another reason for reviewing SATC and other uncomfortable films: It’s good to sometimes enter into the minds and worldviews of others, even of those we completely disagree with. It’s good to see what the world looks like through the eyes of even the depraved.”

Based on your comments here and elsewhere, I assume you take with issue with that part about it being “good to see what the world looks like through the eyes of even the depraved” and interpret that to be a tacit endorsement to indulge in all manner of sinfulness and wickedness, or in this case, a “soft-core pornographic movie”.

However, when taken in light of the earlier passage, I can’t really agree with that interpretation at all. Nowhere do I get the implication that CT has adopted the opinion that “SATC” is “good for your soul” as some sort of institutional, editorial stance.

Perhaps it could’ve been worded a little better, but I think CT makes it fairly clear about their stance on films, and how they approach such things: “We trust our readers to make their own decisions; we won’t make those decisions for anyone.” In other words, I take that to mean that even when CT makes positive statements about a film that most people wouldn’t find objectionable, they still rely on their readers to ultimately use their own discretion and follow their own conscience.

This might seem like a cop-out to you, and I can understand why — it allows for an awful lot of wiggle room when it comes matters like the one raised by the “SATC” review, and it requires more work on the part of the reader to do some homework. For example, they might need to read other reviews by the critic in question, so see how well their opinions and convictions seem to measure up with the critics. But I don’t know how a publication that serves as large and diverse an audience as CT’s can function otherwise without adopting the most fundamentalist and conservative of stances towards all films. (Nor do I see how forcing the reader to do a little more work to form their own opinion to automatically be a bad thing.)

I have to admit, I’m curious: when you look at CT’s history of reviews, do you see this issue surrounding the “SATC” review to be the rule or the exception? Or, to put it another way, do you believe that CT’s policy, as stated in their recent defense, as well as articles like http://www.christianitytoday.com/movies/commentaries/havewelostourminds.html, is intrinsically flawed and that, by and large, their movie reviews are causing Christians to stumble? Or do you think, overall, that their approach is fine, and that, by and large, their reviews are well-reasoned and worthwhile?

The reviewer gave it a Good rating rather than a great rating. She expressed disappointment in the main storyline and it’s resolution. She compared it unfavourably to the television series, saying “the franchise shines best when showcasing the characters’ little, daily struggles and neuroses than when trying to make bigger statements.” She characterized the production as trying to shoehorn too many ideas, concepts, and characters into its runtime, and only succeeding moderately well at this. She further mentions that the film suffers for the absence of The Reason for Watching the Television Series (at least the main reason for her). And she talks about the sex scenes as being offensive and perhaps only there as a means of shocking audiences.

Of course she also talks about the film’s positive aspects, which will largely be positives for people already made fans of the show. As you mention, she talks about how she enjoyed the characters and the storyline (for the most part, see her caveat above). She also found value in people actually dealing with the difficulties of a single’s life and difficulties (something that the church generally has not successfully accomplished). She spoke of other elements that she found to be of a higher quality.

Taken as a whole, in her opinion, the positive elements outweighed the bad by a small margin. That’s all there in the review. If that’s a glowing review, you must read a lot of glowing reviews, because most films are average or slightly better than average and those are the kinds of terms that reviewers typically use. Presenting the positive as well as the mitigating factors. Generally, when one thinks of the term glowing, one imagines unmitigated support. For instance, I wouldn’t typically consider a review that said Movie A excels in Areas X, Y, and Z but could have done better in Areas E, F, and G to be a glowing review. A glowing review would not really go into the Buts.

As far as CT essentially misrepresenting those who found it problematic, that’s not exactly what happened.

I suspect the part you’re thinking of is when CT says, “But some folks believe that when it comes to a movie like Sex and the City, there should be no choice—they’ve decided that no one should see it, period…at least no one who calls themselves a Christian.” This statement is not, in fact, a misrepresentation of any kind, since that is the sentiment present in the excerpts they earlier quote. Things like: “How can any Christian who takes the Bible seriously want to watch (or review) Sex and the City?” The same sentiment runs thick in the comments to your own post—the idea no true Christian should watch such smut. In your letter, you say that CT believes “that those who disapprove of CT’s endorsement are calling for a boycott of it.” It wouldn’t be hard for CT to come to that conclusion—especially when there are people actually saying that no Christian should watch the film. I fail to see how CT is doing any misrepresentation here.

The Danes last blog post..20080610

I just checked our comment moderation system and it’s not holding any comments. I’m not sure what the problem is. Sorry about that!

Most “objective” reviewers find the movie dull, not a quality piece of work; most Christians, I suspect, find the abundance of sex and nudity to disqualify this movie as legitimate Christian entertainment. That the CT review lauds this movie — despite its vapidity and nudity — is perplexing. The commonality, it seems, among positive reviews of the movie is that the reviewers were fans of the TV show. That a Christian would find the series/movie redemptive because of the characters, despite it being admittedly “soft-core porn,” is bewildering. I’d rather explore that than my offhanded use of the term “one thing.”

I’m not sure we’re getting very far with this. I try to explain my points, and “what you hear” seems to be something very different. Maybe if you take a look at the review on Plugged In Online ( http://www.pluggedinonline.com/movies/movies/a0004077.cfm ), you’d get a better sense of how I might evaluate movies. Note that while there’s a “Positive Elements” section, the overall sense is that any good aspects of this movie are outweighed by the bad ones.

Also note the thoughtful observation in the “Spiritual Content” section. The movie is not deemed “refreshing” or “enjoyable”; the PIO reviewers don’t evaluate movies with their emotions, but with their higher faculties (check out the blog post on this topic, which should be published later today).

Maybe I’m just wanting to encourage Christians, especially Christian reviewers who model media discernment by letting us in on their thinking about a movie, to weigh the merit of a movie with more than their emotions, but to think critically and biblically about a film, and even whether or not it serves us to view a particular film.

Richard Clark — I wouldn’t have been “harsh” if CT merely published the review. But that they went on to essentially misrepresent and dismiss those who found it problematic, going on to say that it is “good” for Christians to view such things in order “to see what the world looks like through the eyes of even the depraved,” requires a firm “no!” from their peers.

Again, my beef isn’t with individual Christians struggling to honor Christ in their media decisions. It’s with a high-profile Christian publication that is essentially encouraging their constituents to go to this soft-core pornographic movie, implying that “it’s good for your soul.” It is absolutely not. It may very well be better for that publication, in the words of Jesus, “to have a great millstone fastened around [its metaphorical] neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea” (Matthew 18:6) than for them to continue publishing such affirming reviews of damaging films.

Ted Slaters last blog post..Working Man Hands

Ted Slaters last blog post..Working Man Hands

And again, again, my main concern is with the subsequent defense of the review, that CT editors would dig their heels in and stand behind the review. One silly review by one author can be dismissed as an anomaly or a mistake. But when the weight of CT stands behind such a review — one that promotes such a morally unhinged movie — *that* alarms me and requires me to stand up and try to bring them back to their senses.

Ted Slaters last blog post..Working Man Hands

You’re right that at some level, the risk that the negatives of a film will have a deleterious effect on me causes me to avoid watching certain films. Of course, this threshold is vastly different for each person. I know a girl who is deeply offended by bloodless PG-level violence and cannot watch a film with anything approaching the Three Stooges-style aggression. I know others who aren’t negatively affected by Fight Club or Raging Bull levels of violence. Perhaps their struggles lie elsewhere.

Same thing with sex and nudity. Some people react differently to such things. I can almost guarantee you that if my wife sees Angelina Jolie in a film with her shirt off, her faith will not in the least be thwarted.

A lot of this is cultural too. I grew up in a house on a beach in Southern California. From the time I was three I was surrounded all summer long (and spring and fall and winter to lesser degrees) by men and women in very little clothing. To me, seeing a woman in shorts and a bikini top is like seeing a woman in a sweater. Not a lot of difference there. For a co-worker who grew up in an entirely different culture, however, seeing a woman with even the slightest cleavage sends his mind into turmoil. He won’t even visit the beach, knowing that his spirit will be harmed. Two very different reactions to the same material.

As well, I am an artist and the son of an artist. I am in no way unfamiliar with the naked human form, male and female. It doesn’t bother me to see nudity in the same way it bothers others, and it is only within certain contexts that I even am able to understand nudity as sexual. I imagine many surgeons probably have similar experiences.

The point is that each person ought to know their limitation. And ought not judge someone else for having different limitations. As long as we’re all about the fallacies, what we have here is a hasty generalization. When we see a description like “SATC contains a threesome, a naked man in a shower, some steamy makeup sex, and sex scenes between married folk” and think to ourselves, Well, that would certainly not be healthy for me to watch, and then convert that to mean that no one can watch such a movie without damaging themselves, we reason fallaciously.

The fact of the matter, none of that sounds very tempting to me. I think of these things differently and my mind categorizes things viewed in film or art differently than your mind does. This doesn’t mean I think you should watch the film nor does it mean that I would say that such things are no big deal. What it does mean is that I realize some people will be okay with the film and other people will be tormented by it.

What the CT review offers is an honest appraisal (whether one agrees with the reviewer’s taste or not) of the film and enough information so that those who struggle with seeing particular things will be equipped enough to know wehther this is a movie they can safely attend without fearing for their soul’s purity.

p.s. You should really stop saying that CT gave the film a glowing review. In no world is a three-out-of-four-star rating and the admission that the film is missing the one thing that made the TV version great (supposedly, I’d never seen the show either) something that can be construed to be a glowing review.

The Danes last blog post..20080610

This would be one thing if they were both equal venues, but the truth is there are very few people who will discover your clarifications buried in the comments of our humble site and there are, well, a whole lot more who have read your apparent misstatements in your Open Letter.

This is unfortunate, and I want to encourage you to take the opportunity to clarify your points in a venue where those who have read your post will see it. I think it would be helpful to sit back and reconsider some of your statements with some of these comments in mind.

I agree with you that the review was, well, way too glowing. But your response was way too harsh. If you disagree, alright. But at least consider it as a possibility.

I would ask similar questions, but I also hope that — based on my previous experiences with their comments and opinions, and based on the respect that I have for them otherwise — I’d want to hear their responses, and carefully consider them, even if I may ultimately reject them. If only because I hope they’ll do the same for me.

“I hadn’t intended to say anything about specific individuals who choose to view it.”

Again, not to be facetious or haughty, but please consider that just because you didn’t intend to say anything doesn’t mean you didn’t. What is said is not always what is communicated, and that goes doubly for a medium as impersonal as the Web.

We need to set some things straight here. It seems that you are concerned because CT published a glowing review about a movie with explicit sex scenes. However, when I brought up how Christian reviews must give honest evaluations of all elements of a movie, you said, “if this movie in fact included complex characters, that would be one thing.”

Now it sounds like you are concerned that CT published a low quality review overall (the link you posted also takes this approach to the issue), which is an entirely different issue.

So which is it? Are you concerned that they gave a glowing review to a film with explicit scenes or are you concerned because there were explicit scenes and the movie lacked anything praiseworthy?

If it is the first concern, then I would point back to my comment about giving honest reviews of all elements of a film.

If it is the second concern, then you need to clarify and restate your argument in your letter to CT. You are no longer making a moral argument, but an argument about the ability of their reviewer to discern good dialogue, plot structure, etc… And then I have nothing more to say, since I haven’t seen the movie (and have no intention to).

Yes. I agree 100%.

I do question the spiritual maturity of any Christian, to be frank, who enjoys what’s considered “the most explicit film in British film history.” God did provide coverings to Adam and Eve for a purpose, perhaps for the same reason He had the sacred Ark of the Covenant hidden within the Holy of Holies. Some things are too precious for common viewing.

Guys who say they’re not affected by pornography are either eunuchs or liars. Or have become inured by repeated exposure to it. In my opinion.

Back to my original point: My concern is that a prominent Christian publication would use such glowing terms in speaking about this movie, and that the editors went on to affirm this review. I hadn’t intended to say anything about specific individuals who choose to view it.

I appreciate how the tone of this conversation, while still animated, has become more productive.

Ted Slaters last blog post..Turning Ten

Not to be facetious, but isn’t that were personal conviction, as led by the Holy Spirit, must come into play?

I know Christians, folks for whom I have very great respect, who find value in Michael Winterbottom’s “9 Songs”, a film that contains scenes of unsimulated sexual intercourse between its actors. They fully acknowledge the film’s problematic side, while still finding value in it. But for me, personally, I doubt I would be able to see past the film’s problematic aspect to see the value they see.

But which one of us is right? Or being more Christ-like? Are they seeing something false? Has their vision has been clouded, their faith has been compromised by their lusts? Or is my faith weak for not being able to withstand temptation to see the value in such a film?

Admittedly, that’s a bit of an extreme example, but I hope it makes my point. I’m not arguing for moral relativism here, but I am arguing that our convictions are not the same. And we must be faithful to those convictions as led by the Holy Spirit.

“Alan Noble, if this movie in fact included complex characters, that would be one thing. According to the New Yorker ( http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2008/06/christianity-today-hearts-sex.html ), though, the movie’s characters are weak, the dialog is weak, the plot lines are weak, and so on.

Check out the reviews on RottenTomatoes.com to get a better idea of the vapid quality of this movie, a movie that seemingly only fans of the TV show could like.”

I wonder: are there any movies that you find feel have merit, that have received less-than-stellar ratings on Rotten Tomatoes? For example, “Prince Caspian” — which you bemoaned received a lower score in CT than “Sex And City” — currently only has a rating of 66%, which while higher than “Sex And The City”, is not exactly what I’d call a glowing score. Additionally, I bet I could find plenty of reviews that describe “Prince Caspian”’s characters, dialog, and plot lines as weak. Peter Travers’ or Michael Phillips’ perhaps?