So I got an email about Pat Boone's rantings about the latest Hollywood films he has dubbed "WMDs." Thought you all would appreciate another look at his essay from the perspective of a growing Christian film maker.
As we all know, if there is one thing that happens to us on a day-by-day basis, it's the fact that facts can be misrepresented in any manner in order to make a point one way or the other. While reading his article, I began to doubt whether or not Mr. Boone even bothered watching these movies he ranted about. Some part of me thinks he took a quick gander at the film synopses with complete disregard to any messages. As someone who has seen most of these movies he bashed in his essay, he has overlooked many themes and principles presented in these movies - major messages that can only be missed with an intent to do so.
Here to you, I offer my breakdown of his article, "Hollywood Salutes its WMDs"
I don't think it's a stretch to call many of Hollywood's latest films – including the nominated ones this year – WMDs.
Why? Well, what's the definition of a WMD? The term still doesn't appear in most dictionaries, but the name itself tells you: It's a weapon, by its nature destructive, and it's aimed at masses of people. Right?
So look at what most of this year's Oscar nominees, for sad example, are accomplishing. All are beautifully produced and powerfully acted; they are fashioned and marketed by giant studio machines; and, because of their negative messages and content, they are like guided missiles. And the combination of major stars, provocative advertising and millions spent on marketing around the world effectively targets the masses.
It's the payload, the content, that makes them so destructive. I'm still a member of the Academy, so I get DVDs of almost all the films that are clamoring for nomination, in order to vote knowledgeably. I'm no prude, for Pete's sake, but this year I could only find five to vote for in any category, and some I quit watching after 10 minutes!
First rule of film: If you are going to consider yourself a film critic, never leave the film early. Leaving a film in the middle - or even boasting about quitting after ten minutes says one thing: You were intent on turning the film off before finishing it anyway. Mr. Boone had already formulated opinions about these films, and was ready to bash them in a critical essay long before viewing them. If I were to apply his tactics to reading the Bible, I would have closed the book after finishing the third chapter of Genesis and said, "Well great, we're all doomed." You and I know this is not the case, thus I present to you the first fallacy in Mr. Boone's review.
Moving on...
In the five nominees for "Best Picture," there's "There Will Be Blood," a magnificent trashing of America's early oil exploration. "Michael Clayton" dramatically "exposes" decadent money-crazy big business in our country. "Juno" charmingly documents a 15-year-old girl's unemotional sex with the neighbor boy, and her brave decision to have the baby and hand it off to a woman whose marriage breaks up during the pregnancy. The message: No harm, no foul; life goes on happily. "Atonement," produced in England but honored here, is the beautiful saga of early very graphic sex and lies, followed by later graphic sex and disillusionment. We didn't receive our copy of "No Country For Old Men," but the TV previews leave no doubt that it's the most violent, bloody, profane entry of the bunch.
Of all the movies listed, "There Will Be Blood" is the least inaccurate of his brief synopses. I have not seen it yet, but many friends of mine will tell you first that it was visually stunning, articulate in its design and the way it told a story. As a second thought they are quick to mention also that it is definitely a film one must take with a grain of salt. As film majors we are trained to evaluate a movie for how well it makes a point, not necessarily what the point is. Most agree that while "There Will Be Blood" looked great from a cinematography standpoint, there was no resolution. Many a moviegoer will be disappointed if it wins "Best Picture.
Next on his list is "Michael Clayton." I had the privilege of screening this film a few days ago with about twenty of my peers. I don't know what Pat Boone is trying to get at when he says it "dramatically exposes decadent money-crazy big business in our country," we all know lawyers are sharks. The point of "Michael Clayton" was not the glorification of greed and power. The message was that power and greed corrupt, and real men can never be bought out. Throughout the movie, George Clooney's character is an emotionless cover-up lawyer, whose soul purpose is to make bad things disappear. In the end of the movie, he comes to the realization that he can use his power to reconcile thousands of families of people who were killed by intentional report fabrication of a pharmaceutical company to gain FDA approval. The purpose of "Michael Clayton" is not to glorify power hungry executives, but to emphasize the impact of one man who made the right decision.
"Juno." I watched "Juno" a few weeks ago and was greatly impressed not only with the movie as a whole, but most specifically the content and the point of the movie. I honestly do not see what Mr. Boone's problem with Juno was. The main character, Juno, is fifteen years old. She, like a lot of teenagers today (unfortunately) engaged in premarital sex with her boyfriend. Facing the consequences of her admittedly stupid actions, she goes to an abortion clinic. After talking with a classmate who was outside the building protesting, she came to the conclusion that the child inside her was indeed alive, and she was not going to kill it no matter how much it could ruin her life at school, or her relationship with her parents. Ah, her parents. These two were quite possibly my favorite supporting characters in the movie. Naturally, when the news hit that their daughter was pregnant, they were upset, but never angry. The scene was uncomfortable to watch because there was definitely a heavy amount of disappointment in their daughter being projected, but their reactions were Christlike through and through. They knew their daughter wasn't perfect, but they also knew it wasn't the end of the world, and that whatever her decision, they would support her. The point of "Juno" was, to sum it up shortly, that relationships can only work when one chooses to look past another's shortcomings. It seems to me that Mr. Boone was rather upset that the movie had a happy ending. I think he would have been more satisfied if Juno was kicked out of her house and dropped out of highschool.
"Atonement and "No Country for Old Men." I have neither seen nor heard much about either, but I saw the 15 second previews on the television and let me tell you, they were absolutely amazing films about self-sacrifice and mercy. (You catching my drift?)
That's the top five, but in other categories like Best Actor and Actress, we can choose among a musical "snuff film" in "Sweeney Todd," a mob violence and sadism romp in "Eastern Promises," or a murder mystery portraying American soldiers and police as murderous and duplicitous, right here at home, in war time, in "In The Valley of Elah."
Of course, there's "American Gangster," in which Australian actor Russell Crowe is the only honest cop in New York, trying to bring down the murderous black drug and crime lord, played by our much-honored Denzel Washington; all the New York police and government officials are seen as sleazy, corrupt and "bought off" … and it purports to be a true story!
I'll try and keep from writing a book, as I have other things I need to do still... "Sweeney Todd" cannot be attributed to the "corruption" of today's films because it was written in the late 1970's. "American Gangster" is nothing more than a typical cop vs mob movie. Denzel Washington's character is easily recognized as bad, and is never glorified for his actions.
These are just some of the "cream" films, the ones the industry likes most, but there are scores of others that racked up big grosses and millions of viewers worldwide – films that absolutely undermine the honor and integrity of our leaders, our military, our business leaders, and even Christian ministers and churchgoers.
Why do I refer to all these classy-looking but decadent films as WMDs? Because, while they rack up tremendous profits and self-acclaim, they cause as much permanent damage to America's reputation and standing around the world as would neutron bombs! They contribute to the immorality and degradation of Judeo-Christian principles among young people everywhere, much like poison gas released in cities, subways, high schools and places of worship. Instead of extolling America, our long-established way of life, our freedoms and ingenuity and commitments to valor, our neighborliness and our pursuits of legitimate happiness – as Hollywood used to do in history's most successful films – the industry seems intent on fulfilling the fondest hopes and expressed aims of the Communists in the 1950s. As Sen. Joe McCarthy and even Ronald Reagan, then president of the Screen Actors Guild, found, foes determined to destroy the United States realized they could most effectively undermine us by infiltrating and corrupting our image in the movies! These Communist sympathizers were routed, temporarily; but today, capitalist, money-motivated producers are furthering identical goals!
As an actor, as an American, I'm dismayed. As we watch the Oscars, I'll be remembering the Psalmist's observance:
"The wicked freely strut about
When what is vile is honored among men."
Finally, don't assume that I think Hollywood is not corrupt. There are many movies out there that have no place in theaters - and guess what - they do poorly in the box office. Paris Hilton's newest movie made less than a hundred dollars per screen on opening night. The blatantly anti-Christian movie "The Golden Compass" fared far worse than anticipated, in spite of its all star cast. To say that bad films succeed is blind. Bad films quickly get shoved aside in a desperate attempt of moviegoers to find something worth their while. Take into account how well Pixar has done. Their films cater to all audiences, and they do so in a tasteful way. Notice how more often than not, films deeply rooted in moral absolutes do better in the box office. Mr. Boone needs to reevaluate his critiquing methods before I take him seriously again.
