I'm not convinced that Hollywood is always going out of its way to be anti-Catholic. I think in many cases it's a matter of their being utterly clueless. I saw an interview with Caulkin, who was raised a Catholic, who seemed to think that it was just a humorous but affectionate look at religion.
Radactrice | 06.01.04 - 1:13 am | #

Catholicism is featured in so many movies because it offers great visuals and props: medieval clerical attire, crucifixes, Latin chanting, and funny hats. The must fundy of fundamentalist Baptists can't hold a candle to that (so to speak).
LP | 06.01.04 - 1:24 am | #

I think LP's partly right. The non-Catholic Christians who also get satirised by Hollywood (eg, Leap of Faith) -- or at least, depicted at all (Tender Mercies, The Apostle) -- are Pentecostals and other Revivalists, who are also very visual. No one's ever going to make a film where the dramatic centrepiece is six Calvinists undertaking a bible study (or an enclosed nun in contemplative prayer, for that matter).

This may also be why Muslims are rarely depicted. I can think of only two, passing depictions -- Jerusalem 1196 AD in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, and The Siege. And both cases depicted a muezzin in a mosque sounding the call to prayer, ie one of the few "cinematic" elements of Islam. (A hajjr to Mecca would make great cinema but would never be filmed, for political reasons.)

Having said that, I agree a lot is animosity towards any kind of demanding, non-politically-correct religion.
Tom R | 06.01.04 - 1:45 am | #

I think Radactrice is also on the right track. To a Hollywoodian, showing (say) a Thorn Birds-type priest "consoling" a lonely woman sexually is actually a compliment, in their lingo. To a Christian, that'd be like praising a Jehovah's Witness in front of the Kingdom Hall for being generous with his blood donations. I've had secular friends make comments along the lines of "I thought it was only adultery that was forbidden, so if you're not married, it's not a sin".
Tom R | 06.01.04 - 1:49 am | #

Political fanaticism has become a type of Neo-Religion lately.

The President is their Pope. The Senators are their Bishops. The Congressmen are their Priests. The Constitution and Supreme Court Rulings are their Holy Scripture. Citizenship is their Baptism. Sex is their Eucharist. Counseling is their Reconciliation. Feeling guilt is their Confirmation. XXXX is their Marriage (this is unknown as they are defining it now for themselves). Civil Rights are their Holy Orders. Volunteer work is their Good Deeds. Petitions are their Prayers. Protests are their Stations of the Cross. Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King Jr., John F. Kennedy are their martyred saints. The capitol is their Church. They place Eternal Faith in the ‘checks and balances’ of the three person branch of the government, the Three That Act As One, their Holy Trinity, of Executive (father), of Legislative (son), and the Judiciary (Holy Spirit).

They don't think they are 'having fun', they are literally following a neo-religion. They just don't realize it.
Jonathan | 06.01.04 - 2:01 am | #

In spite of the plug on this film from Ebert and his trusty sidekick, Dondi, I have this feeling it will bomb. Most of these films don't go very far. I believe that it's only playing in two theaters so far in the Chicago area, both of which are located in quite liberal neighborhoods.

You can only beat that dead horse for so long. It's not going to come alive. The anti-religious themes of films are playing thmeselves out. Who needs them when we have so many bishops...oh, well.

Thanks to those above for some perceptive comments.
John Hetman | 06.01.04 - 6:07 am | #

I think it's very easy to jump in the Hollywood hates Christians bandwagon every time a secular attempt to understand Christianity comes out. However, I think in _Saved!_'s case, it might be better to withhold judgment until you actually see it (or, if the subject matter doesn't appeal to you, read pros and cons and understand the debate).

The writer/director of _Saved!_ is actually a product of Christian schools, and knows their inner workings. Some Christian film critics have responded by saying that the film is actually accurate (in exaggerated form) to the goings on in these schools. Also keep in mind that some of the secular (read: anti-Christian) criticisms of the film say that it goes soft at the end, it doesn't go far enough, that it actually affirms faith (or at least a faith that learns to love outcasts).

I'm not saying the film is perfect; actually, I haven't seen it yet, because it hasn't come up in my area. Films like this have a small release in selected cities first, word of mouth is built, and then released to the larger public. It actually did quite well for its limited release, take that whatever it's worth.

The article didn't mention some of the positive outpourings of faith in films, accurate or not. Some of these include: Magnolia (which is probably the example Tom R is looking for), Tender Mercies, Chariots of Fire, Dead Man Walking, Signs, Shadowlands, The Straight Story, The Sweet Hereafter, Bruce Almighty, as well as any Krzysztof Kieslowski's work. Not all of these films are appropriate for family viewing, but they are appropriate for asking the right questions in learning how to appropriate faith in our world.

No movie will ever perfectly convey Christian principles, because we are all imperfect and the essence of storytelling indicates there must be a conflict that must be resolved or wrestled with. I, for one, am looking forward to seeing _Saved!_ if it were to come up to this area, and take its criticisms to heart. I don't expect it to be perfect--it certainly does have an agenda--but if secular critics, over and again, complain or laud over the same fact that the critique is on particular Christians who neglect certain aspects of Christ's mercy, then it is worth checking out. And if the film is faulty on its theology, then strong believers would be able to handle it. For consistency's sake, I'd like to see folks on this board complain about the faulty theology of _It's a Wonderful Life_...

Nick
Nick Alexander | Homepage | 06.01.04 - 9:56 am | #

Nick,

The Sweet Hereafter? I saw that movie (though quite some time ago), and I don't remember any overt references to faith. It was a good movie though.
Michelle K. | 06.01.04 - 11:03 am | #

That these people hate Christians I can forgive.

But I can't ignore raw stupidity & ignorance! For example in LEAP OF FAITH the Pentacostal Minister, the Rt Rev Steve Martin, had a crucifix in his tent meetings! The statue of Jesus had it's eyes closed & he painted over them & made them open. "It's a Miricle".

Ok.....A PROTESTANT PENTACOSTAL MINISTER with a statue in his Church!? Yeh! Of course. What's next a movie with Pope St Pius X singing A MIGHTY FORTROSE IS OUR GOD during the Papal Mass at the Vatican?

Worse than Morons!
BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th) | 06.01.04 - 11:47 am | #

I think Felder's pretty much dead-on with this piece. His descriptions of the tenets H'wood seems to follow are very observant. "Saved" was produced by Michael Stipe of the band REM who has been "out" as a homosexual for a few years now. I know he & his band are flaming liberals but I've mostly been able to ignore it 'cos it rarely enters their music. But this whole movie thing has tainted my appreciation of their music now. All of this fits with Felder's description of the agenda. And, I gotta say, it's not a isolated example. Various friends in LA who work in the bidniz have told stories that would make your hairs stand on end. H'wood folks really do tend to see us as evil & worthy of derision.
Gene Branaman | 06.01.04 - 12:22 pm | #

Be encouraged. You read the list of "anti-Christian" movies in the article, and the overwhelming majority of them were box-office bombs. I hadn't even heard of a couple of them, and I'm an avid movie-goer.

The cure for this is NOT to protest, boycott, write nasty letters, etc. the cure of this is to encourage the dramatic arts among young Christians. We aren't going to change this by getting the anti-Christians to shut up. We're going to change this by Christians becoming filmmakers, actors, writers, directors, poets, artists, musicians, etc.

Christendom ruled the arts for hundreds of years. It's time we took it back.
Mark S. (S. is not for Shea) | 06.01.04 - 12:26 pm | #

Besides, with our visual traditions, film should be a cinch for us eh?
JonathanR. | 06.01.04 - 2:04 pm | #

REM had one video -- for Losing My Religion, I think -- that was banned in Ireland 10-15 years ago because, inter alia, it parodied the killing of Saint Sebastian, arrows and all. Ironically the title is IIRC, Southern slang for "losing my memory" or something like that -- not actually about religion at all!

Nick, thanks for the longer list but I have some quibbles:

Magnolia -- haven't seen, but isn't that the one where Tom Cruise has potty mouth?

Chariots of Fire -- okay, a positive example, although there's both a Christian and a Jew -- ie, neither religion is "more true", but it's just good to have some religion. Also, "I won't run on the Sabbath" is a good way to dramatise what's otherwise unseen.

Dead Man Walking -- a very un-contemplative nun. A moving film but almost nothing in it was religious. It nearly converted me to anti-death penalty until I saw some of the soundtrack was by Pearl Jam's Eddie Vedder, a vehement pro-abortionist. So DMW had the opposite effect on me.

Signs -- another positive, although "Believe in God so He will protect you from an alien invasion" is... not a promising evangelistic angle.

Shadowlands -- described by one Chrn reviewer as "like filming a biog of Lenin that barely mentions Marxism and shows his main passion to be the electrification of Russia".

Krzysztof Kieslowski's work -- I've only seen the Three Colours trilogy -- thought-provoking, but I missed any religious aspects.

I think we need to be careful of the temptation to "baptise" any morally sound (or non-immoral) film as "Christian" or "religious" (eg, I don't count LotR as one).
Tom R | 06.01.04 - 3:44 pm | #

http://www.thunderstruck.org/helen.htm
Mark S. (S. is not for Shea) | 06.01.04 - 4:53 pm | #

OK, it's official. After reading this:

http://promontoryartists.org/loo...s/Q-Z/ saved.htm

I, too, want to go see Saved! Count me in.
Mark S. (S. is not for Shea) | 06.01.04 - 4:54 pm | #

Rented Gospel of John the other night. One of the least inspiring depictions I've seen, but at least one thing it did right - although Jesus looks like a typical West Coast Wimp, he actually did not act like one all the time. They had scenes where he actually ticked off the powers that be and seemed to do so intentionally. It gave at least a plausible rendition of why they might have wanted him dead. The casting was horrendous (Mary looked like and old Irish nun rather than a middle aged Jewish mother) and I never recall the gospels mentioning a female present at the last supper and the garden, but yet, there she was (perhaps a PC concession?). So much for extra-biblical protestations.
c matt | 06.02.04 - 11:15 am | #

Nothing about "Saved" itself, but I will say that what I've read of it sounds an awful lot like Christian (I'm tempted to put that in quotes) high schools I was familiar with growing up in the Dallas area. Drinking, drugs, and sex, sex, sex. Now that I think about it, actually, almost all of the girls who I knew who got pregnant as teenagers went to Christian high schools . . . hmmm. I'm sure that's not related . . . Why things got like that I'm not sure, maybe that's why so many evangelical families homeschool, too, these days. But - hey, what's Mandy Moore doing mixed up in this project???
Meg Q | Homepage | 06.02.04 - 1:23 pm | #

BTW, "Shadowlands" the movie w/ Anthony Hopkins was terrible. "Shadowlands" the TV movie w/ Joss Ackland was quite good. But a "definitive" Lewis movie is a long way from being made, I'm sure.
Meg Q | Homepage | 06.02.04 - 1:26 pm | #