Hey, I totally agree, fer shure. I think we need "Hostel" like stuff to replace Mr. Rogers. Trash our brains as soon as possible! 
Posted on 02/07/2006 12:31:17 AM PST by paudio
Well done, driftless. Agree completely.
He is saying that we need to drop any moral values we have, be like them, and get edgy.
The problem with the article is he writes in the context of this time, where we have five, Oscar nominated, little seen movies, all "cutting edge", that are really attacks on conservative values. If you go back to the golden age of Hollywood, when the Code was in effect, the movies were great in spite of the Code. Plus, people watched them.
Even after the Coded disappeared, there was still constraint on the part of Hollywood as shown by self-imposed ratings. Today, even they are a joke.
Movies can have a message and that message can be troubling and thoughtful. But that message has to be meaningful and more universal than the liberal propaganda being foisted on us.
I suspect an uncomfortably large portion of the viewership of Passion were horror fans getting off on viewing the flagellation and torture and whatnot who had no interest in Christianity, so it's not like there's this vast gulf between the two films.
I think he's talking more about stuff like the "Left Behind" movies.
Hey, I totally agree, fer shure. I think we need "Hostel" like stuff to replace Mr. Rogers. Trash our brains as soon as possible!
You've noticed that too. It is very ironic that with all the so-called artistic freedom todays "artists" have, most of what is put out is garbage. If you are as old as me (fifties), you might remember years ago when all the sensitive artists railed against censorship and other strictures claiming unbridled artistic license would lead to an artistic nirvana.
In fact the opposite has happened. We are at the point where critics are claiming to see great art in urine and feces daubed on canvases or put in bottles. The artistic world today is absurd. Nobody in this century or the last one has equalled the work of the great artists, writers, and composers of the previous centuries. Even with all their wonderful artistic freedom. (smirk) Just my humble observation.
Cannot remember off the top of my head the exact scripture, but it has to do with the narrow gate. There may be ten Pulp Fictions, but that is the wide road. The narrow road and gate is what we should be striving for.
Same with film. First, it must have a good story. Second, and most important, is that the characters must be people the audience cares about or is interested in. Even the villians. If the hero is just as bad as the villian, no one is interested. Dirty Harry was a good flick because the idea of a cop that goes over the line to help citizens he cares nothing about was new and edgy at the time. Coupled with a villian who while insane, knew that society was moving towards a method where the villians rights are more protected than those he killed. The old way against the new way. And when it came right down to it, the new way was not working for the cop. So he chucked it all - his career, his life, his freedom - to stop the insanity from taking over. The liberals could not understand why it was popular just as the cannot understand why The Passion is popular. Just as the cannot understand why The Incredibles was popular. Because it is about doing the right thing against all odds. Yeah, the world is full of bad guys. The liberals wants us to live with that. I.E., Kerry stating that America should just get use to terrorism as Israel and Europe has done. The American way - the right way - is to recognize, yeah, terrorism exists, and though we may fail, we must try to stop it. That makes a good story every time.
I was watching a program concerning comics some time back - a couple years ago - and one of the giants of the industry - John Buscema I believe it was but I could be wrong - stated that Frank Miller would be great except for the fact he hates comics. He did not elaborate but it was an interesting comment. I loved Miller's take on the Batman when he did The Dark Knight Returns. His latest, Batman comes back again after a five year absence, is too political and anti-conservative.
He claims to be interested in the "good, the true and the beautiful" and in finding ways to promote it "from the bottom up". Again this appears only meant as a slogan because all the author really seems to want is to get conservatives to support the "artistic" per se without any thought to how the "good and true and beautiful" would be sought or found or presented, IF it is not itself sought.
There are ways of talking about this that are not merely "prescriptive" as he says --another dead give away that the author's real motive is he wants to ahake money from the right for the same "permissive, anthing goes" style of "art" of today. Without any idea animating the search for the good the true and the beautiful [which is a Platonic notion at its heart] and the source, really, of Western Civilization.
The author's avoidance of this issue shows that he is not dealing with his topic seriously and the great concept he "quotes" is only used as a beguling slogan.
One other thought. Townhall.com has of late appeared to be primarily interested in fundraising more than anything else. It makes sense in that light that this article is coming from that source.
What's not talked about much is Miller also did some time remaking Daredevil, turning that character from a smart mouth crime fighter to a dark, edgy and sometimes borderline insane character.
We do understand these concepts and many Christians are indeed working from the bottom up trying to effect change.
Also, we understand very well his premise in #2.....
...bottom line...we will not compromise our higher standard to achieve this!
bump for later...
My wife is an artist who strives to present the "true and the beautiful". She has won some awards and gets into several local and national-level retail art shows every year. In the internal show judging, however, when prizes are awarded, they almost always go to the frightening, the horrific, and the gratuitously painful work. As one judge said in public: "It was scary. I liked it."
The problem with working from the bottom up is the incestuousness of the arts. The liberals have taken them over at all levels, and they will not relinquish their hold easily.
I agree with the author that much of Conservative art is "bland" or just plain poorly executed, serving up message or image over quality of workmanship. The problem is, much of the liberal art is the same, only the message is more readily accepted. Like the downtrodden minorities of the past, we have to be twice as good to get half the recognition. In the end, it will make Conservative artists better, but they have to recognize that one tenet: Strive for excellence in presentation. Don't give the judges or audiences any reason to disregard you because of quality.
Lack of comprehension on the part of some viewers does not erase the gulf between the art of the one film (Passion) and the sensationalism (Pulp) of the other.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.