Why is it that Christians feel the need to offer something that sounds exactly like the secular "something", except with Christian lyrics or "plot"? And why does it usually seem worse than the thing it is trying to imitate?
I think that for some reason or another Christians have got the idea that we can't show real emotions, and act sad when we're sad, and be normal human beings with real emotions. SO we must make music that is like that too.
I remember being so entranced by this guy that came to our Christian school when I was in about 6th or 7th grade (Before I listened to any music mind you), when he came in to give a speech about Christian music. He gave us a humongous list with about 50 different secular bands on the list with a Christian band that sounds similar right beside them. For a few years, I bought into his philosophy of just using "sanatized" christian stuff, until I really started listening to music. First of all, there is an absolutely wonderful world out there that the Christian is missing out on if he or she just listens to what is considered Christian music. Secondly, the Christian music that they are listening to may be made with less of a biblical perspective than the secular music that is just like it. There are sure some good motivitations going on with these Christian artists, but they are also neglecting the biblical idea of "singing a new song to the Lord". Like I said before, by limiting yourself to being copies of someone else's music, you are limiting your creativity. And by limiting yourself to just praise music, you are limiting yourself to one aspect of God's world, and leaving so much of the life he has given you untouched. As the years pass, I have less and less feelings of what I believe is false guilt for not writing or listening to straight up Christian music. I think I was told one thing for so long from Kindergarten through 8th Grade, that it is very hard to this day, to keep Romanowski's perspective on the arts, and especially Christian music, though I know it is the correct one.
Sunday, December 2, 2007
Widespread misunderstanding of violence/language
I love this book. The chapter on violence, language and sex was wonderful.
I think that a large majority of Christians have had a great misunderstanding of the place of language, violence, and sex in film. Although I didn't think The Passion was as spectacular as everyone said it was, I do think it was a step in the right direction as far as helping Christians understand the place of violence in film. It showed how violence, used properly, can have a profoundly repulsing effect on an audience, and invoke a very moral response. Though I'm sure less Christians have seen Schindler's List, the use of violence in the film is for exactly the same use, and is used to a highly justifiable end. The problem is (and I am just as guilty of this as the next guy)that with films like Die Hard, Speed, The Terminator, etc., violence may not be nearly as graphic, but its use in the film may much less justifiable anyway. These films use violence to increase the heart rate, heighten tension, and make the film a whole lot more fun. Now, maybe a Christian wouldn't want to see one of these films in the theater because of language. So they wait until it gets on TV. The violence is still there, and used for the same reason, although less may be shown. So who is using violence in more of a morally justifiable manner? The action directors like John Woo, John McTeirnan (If I didn't write these blogs before 12, I'd check my spellings), and James Cameron (excluding Titanic) or Martin Scorsese, Stephen Spielberg (his Prvate Ryan, Schindler's List type films), and Oliver Stone?
Some may shy away from watching the last three director's films due to the high degree of graphic violence in them, feeling that showing such content is morally unjustifiable, yet they may not think twice about watching something like Face Off, or Terminator 2. There seems to be a big contradiction there, and such a mindset is a huge part of American and even Christian culture today. Scorsese probably has some of the most violent films out there, yet hardly any of the films use the violence to make the movie more fun. Violence is used to show the complexities of the human heart, and the reality of life in certain parts of New York in Scorsese's films (Gangs of New York did use some violence as means of entertainment though). Scorsese uses violence to show complexities of character. His purposes seem to have moral ends most of the time, and he certainly doesn't use violence to fill up extra space in a film. His Age of Innocence didn't require any violence, so it didn't have any, and the film was still so effective that it has hard to move once the credits started rolling from the emotional tension that kept building through the entire film.
I think that a large majority of Christians have had a great misunderstanding of the place of language, violence, and sex in film. Although I didn't think The Passion was as spectacular as everyone said it was, I do think it was a step in the right direction as far as helping Christians understand the place of violence in film. It showed how violence, used properly, can have a profoundly repulsing effect on an audience, and invoke a very moral response. Though I'm sure less Christians have seen Schindler's List, the use of violence in the film is for exactly the same use, and is used to a highly justifiable end. The problem is (and I am just as guilty of this as the next guy)that with films like Die Hard, Speed, The Terminator, etc., violence may not be nearly as graphic, but its use in the film may much less justifiable anyway. These films use violence to increase the heart rate, heighten tension, and make the film a whole lot more fun. Now, maybe a Christian wouldn't want to see one of these films in the theater because of language. So they wait until it gets on TV. The violence is still there, and used for the same reason, although less may be shown. So who is using violence in more of a morally justifiable manner? The action directors like John Woo, John McTeirnan (If I didn't write these blogs before 12, I'd check my spellings), and James Cameron (excluding Titanic) or Martin Scorsese, Stephen Spielberg (his Prvate Ryan, Schindler's List type films), and Oliver Stone?
Some may shy away from watching the last three director's films due to the high degree of graphic violence in them, feeling that showing such content is morally unjustifiable, yet they may not think twice about watching something like Face Off, or Terminator 2. There seems to be a big contradiction there, and such a mindset is a huge part of American and even Christian culture today. Scorsese probably has some of the most violent films out there, yet hardly any of the films use the violence to make the movie more fun. Violence is used to show the complexities of the human heart, and the reality of life in certain parts of New York in Scorsese's films (Gangs of New York did use some violence as means of entertainment though). Scorsese uses violence to show complexities of character. His purposes seem to have moral ends most of the time, and he certainly doesn't use violence to fill up extra space in a film. His Age of Innocence didn't require any violence, so it didn't have any, and the film was still so effective that it has hard to move once the credits started rolling from the emotional tension that kept building through the entire film.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)