If you’re interested in looking back at a previous testimony from another reviewer who received the same treatment, just let me know.

That is a really scary statement to me. Who would be “vetting” all scripts? Didn’t he just conflict with himself by mentioning I AM LEGEND, THE PATRIOT, THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST, ROCKY BALBOA, and THE GREEN MILE and then saying he wants to eliminate all R-rated films and most PG-13?

Hegemony is defined as “the social, cultural, ideological, or economic influence exerted by a dominant group”. America is founded on democracy and republican ideals, not dominance by one group–especially over art.

The best way Christians can influence the making of good movies is with our $$ — what we go see at the movies. Not by trying to re-instate a Code that would be outlaw some of the greatest films in history.

peace,
-joshMshep
http://www.joshmshep.com

If you were making the case that the works of James M. Cain, Dashiell Hammett, and Raymond Chandler should not be censored because the Bible has at least as many scenes of violence and depravity, then at least you’d have a closer comparison. The Bible was never meant to be a visual work and though David gazed on Bathsheba bathing and Solomon was a pimp-daddy, doesn’t mean we should have no problem watching reenactments of their life experiences in details explicit as those found in Scripture.

Check out this news item from their site (here’s the link http://www.movieguide.org/index.php?s=news&id=53 if they don’t take it down):

MOVIEGUIDE® Supporters Make a Difference: Fewer American Teens Engage in Sex
Dec 21st, 2004
In news that we feel reflects the influence of MOVIEGUIDE®’s faithful readers and supporters, the National Center for Health Statistics reported recently that fewer teenagers aged 15-17 are engaging in sex.

By supporting the Gala with your most generous monetary gifts, you can ensure that these positive trends continue. Call 1-800-899-6684 now to make a donation. We need many, many gifts of all sizes before the end of the year.

MovieGuide’s Awards Gala is the reason teens are having sex less often??? Totally laughable.

peace,
-joshmshep
http://www.joshmshep.com

Striking was the forwarding of a film’s dominant worldview and an objectively quantifiable concept. This seems a largely impossible task with films that are not overt in projecting a particular worldview.*

Take Ratatouille for instance—as the film has received mention several times over the course of the discussion. I’m not certain how one would go about determining which worldview (if any in particular) the film proffers. There is little of any particular philosophy presented in either the narrative or in the chief characters’ actions or motives. One might guess that such neutrality might be part of the reason the film is so broadly embraced by American audiences—it is entirely innocuous in it’s proposals.

To another point, I found Movieguide’s goal of the vetting of scripts to exclude content above a PG-13 (and even most PG-13 content) to be a dismal prospect. Of the most worthwhile films in the last twenty years, the lion’s share have been graced with an R rating.** And the bulk of those would not be as good if stripped down to innocuous levels.

Take for instance one of my favourite films. Snow Falling on Cedars is an good, worthwhile film and might even fit somehow through dark arts and arcane means into Movieguide’s CCC rating*** simply because the values that it champions are good values. But I would not remove a single R-rated moment from the film for the presented story would be yards more shallow for the loss.

When we look at the great films of the Hays’ Code era, we consider them great despite the fantasy worlds they inhabit and not because of them. Casablanca works because we recognize that Curtiz couldn’t portray the devils inhabiting his film with any degree of realism. Double Indemnity works because we recognize that Wilder couldn’t actually portray the kind of lust that would drive Walter Neff to murder. We position ourselves in a state of mind by which we suspend our disbelief, knowing that that period was an era of rampant puritanism and fundamentalist quote-unquote decency.

It was an era of strange hegemony. A pejorative term that Ed points out is ironically presented as a positive goal by Tom in his conclusion to the interview.

And as I wrote about last summer in my post “Commodify This?” As Daniel R. Nicholson (the subject of the article) proposes, counter-hegemony ought to be the ideal in opposition of hegemony. Counter-hegemony focuses on personal and continued enlightenment and, once having achieved enlightenment, action based upon the truths learned. Counter-hegemony is based wholly on the discontent that full-comprehension ideally must engender. Nicholson goes on to propose that criticism of pop-culture is inherently counter-hegemonic—therefore, it is ironic that Snyder and Movieguide are proposing hegemony while taking a counter-hegemonic role.
_________________________________
NOTES:
* Even seemingly overt films are difficult to quantify. Fight Club, for instance, is often mistaken for a film that proselytizes on behalf of nihilism.

** It may be worthwhile to here point out that I loathe the MPAA’s rating system and think it should be abandoned entirely, giving content-rating over to independent groups like Movieguide, Dobson’s thing, Christian Answers, etc. That way, movies can be what they are and those who are concerned with content can visit their favourite content-reviewer for the goods on that score. Too many films are damaged when film-makers and producers aim to fit their film into a particular rating stratum.

*** granted, I still have no idea how something achieves such a rating.

But I’d probably be wrong.

Hegemony. Wow.