Religion and Hollywood

Another article written for someone else, I decided to take a look at the huge craze in religious based films coming to theaters near you. I also addressed the claim that Hollywood is  a "godless" town. How can a town seen as "godless" produce so much pro-god content?

If you ever spend any amount of time listening to a Christian Conservative speak, not an activity I can ever recommend, at some point you will here them reference the sinful and godlessness of Hollywood. Tinseltown, the Land of Dreams, all elicit comparisons from the Right as modern day Sodom. But while Hollywood may be an easy target for condemnation and ridicule, the truth is The Religious Right is just as imbedded in the Entertainment industry as it is in the hallowed halls of government. The proof is right there on the Silver Screen.

As I sit typing this, the film Son of God is playing at the Cineplex across the street. If the title confuses you, the movie is about Jesus Christ. Yes, THAT son of God. Certainly one religious movie can be viewed as a fluke in Atheist ruled Hollywood, except Darren Aronofsky’s Noah is debuting at the end of the month. So even though Christians will picket Harry Potter as promoting witchcraft to our children, they’ll gladly get the grosses up on a film if it based on the Bible.

And this year is seeing a flood (no pun intended, Noah) of religious themed films hitting the American Box Office. One such film that I actually find offensive is the film God’s Not Dead. While there should be nothing wrong with a film where someone confirms their faith, it seems like this film only does so by bashing Atheists. The main antagonist of the film (played by Kevin Sorbo, of Hercules fame) is such a negative portrayal of Atheism he almost should be twirling a mustache in every scene. And the protagonist’s horrible arguments for his faith are only believable to the already devout and should not work on changing the antagonists mind. It’s Christian propaganda masquerading as a coming of age film that’s been done better in any number of films that never needed to resort to name calling (Good Will Hunting is a thousand times better and never once insults the believer or nonbeliever).

But God’s Not Dead is far from the only religious themed film taking potshots at Atheism. The film I Origins also feels the need to take a character who is a nonbeliever and at every turn bombard him with fictitious reasons why he needs to believe. Because as you will learn if you talk to most religious people about Atheists, all atheists are “miserable and depressed with no meaning to their lives.” So therefore if a character is an atheist in a religious film, the only way for him to achieve happiness is to find religion.

The simple truth is that the surge in religious features has nothing to do with an increase in spirituality; it is simply a moneymaking tactic. The best example of this are the commercials for the film Heaven is For Real. Unlike most trailers for other films that are out in theatres, this film has a number you can call to book group showings. Why? Because church groups will rent out a theatre and see this film, about a young boy who briefly dies and is revived claiming to have seen Heaven. This same tactic of religious groups attending a film is what led The Passion of the Christ to be one of highest grossing films of all time (I sadly doubt that Heaven is for Real will reach the same level, but it will certainly make its money back). While I am sure the filmmakers initial aim was to make a film that was meant to be a touching emotional spiritual tale, they are not above exploiting the faith of the audience to sell a product. And as many arguments are made about the importance of art, art is a product. The selling of that product allows more art to be produced and so on and so on.

Now while one could argue that Heaven is For Real and God Is Not Dead are fringe films due to their low budget, one can certainly not make that argument for Noah. Nor can the argument be made for Exodus which is coming out later this year or Left Behind which comes out shortly after that, starring Christian Bale and Nicholas Cage respectively. Both of those films are large budget films with religious overtones. They are produced within the studio system that so many conservatives claim to be godless and against religion. So against religion that there are nearly as many religious movies coming out as movies based on comic books

But making religious themed films is not a new concept for Hollywood. Lots of films have been produced over the years that have been based on religious texts or had a religious overtone (primarily these films are Christian as they are trying to appeal to an American audience which is also mostly Christian). The Ten Commandments starring Charlton Heston is still to this day one of the greatest films ever made, and was at the time one of the most monumental cinematic undertakings of its time. Studios would not have invested that much time and effort if they were anti-religion. The Passion of the Christ is one of the most financially successful films of all time and gave Mel Gibson the clout to do pretty much whatever project he wanted (and escape numerous personal scandals). Even religious films that try to lightly mock religion like Life of Brian, Dogma, or Bruce Almighty do so with only the most tongue in cheek of mockery and ultimately give more respect to the source material than the so called extremist Christians who denounce such films.

The simple truth is that Hollywood is completely pro-religion. The town itself is bursting with churches and centers of all sorts of different belief systems. Someone once said a new church is built daily in Los Angeles and driving around it certainly seems to be true. The simple fact is as long as there are people willing to see a film about religion there will be people in Hollywood trying to make those films. It is the audience that dictates the subject that is produced. Demand creates supply, not the other way around.

The Myth of Liberal Media

In another article I wrote for another source (that was rejected) I take a break from my normal musings about the world of comic books, sci-fi, etc and get political. I can assure you I do not make a habit of writing such articles but I enjoyed this one so much I figured I'd share it. Hopefully I will get back to the super heroes and sci-fi soon:

Ever since I became an adult and found myself wading into the world of politics I have continued to hear this claim of “The Liberal Media.” Now I consider myself a Liberal and I do enjoy studying the Media so I of course am curious how true this label is. Does the media really lean to the left?

As much as Conservatives try to convince you it is by screaming about “Media Bias” the sad fact is that the media is no where near as Liberal as people think. In reality, the media is far more controlled by the right than they care to admit. Now yes, I will admit, the Entertainment side of the media has many liberals working in it. Creative people tend to lean left and creativity is what drives the Entertainment Industry. But that doesn’t matter. When people scream about “Liberal Media”, they’re not talking about entertainment programming. No one cares about Liberal Entertainment. “Liberal Media” is the label given to News and Opinion by people on the Right whenever they disagree with something.

Sadly over the past several decades, media companies have been consolidated so that now everything we see on TV, read in a newspaper, watch in a movie, or hear on the radio is the product of only six companies (I think, I may be wrong and it is actually even less now but last time I checked it was six). Six companies control all media. Right there shows proof that the media is less Liberal than people think. Corporate interests tend to lean right, as the desire to ever increase profits does not mix well with Liberal beliefs of equality and social assistance. So does that mean there are no Liberals working at any of these media companies? No, of course not. It merely means that those ideals are being suppressed in favor of the corporate good.

Now, establishing that most corporations are for the most part not Liberal, you realize that Media is even less Liberal when you consider that one of the six Media companies that control all that you see and hear (like The Outer Limits) is NewsCorp, parent company of Fox News, and owned by notorious Conservative, Rupert Murdoch. Many people who are fans of Fox News try to argue that this channel lives up to its tagline “Fair and Balanced.” I believe these people should be on some sort of anti-psychotic medication. A recent Gallup poll confirmed that nearly 90% of the Fox News audience is made up of Republicans, or people who identify themselves as Conservative leaning. As far as I know, there are no Liberal hosts on that network (I will hit the next person who tries to tell me Bill O’Reilly is a Liberal. If he is, he doesn’t play one on TV). Many of the hosts argue that they are “Independent” but I find that to be a blatant lie meant to mollify their many critics. If the position they argue for is Conservative then they are Conservative. I say I am a Liberal because I tend to agree with Liberals.

So if we establish that one entire media company is Conservative, does that eliminate the argument that the media is Liberal? Well no, it doesn’t. But it certainly doesn’t help the claim being made by people that primarily Liberals control the media. One sixth of the Media we have looked at so far is definitely Conservative. Even more so if we take into account NewsCorps’ huge monopoly on print media in this country. So let us take a look at the other news channels. Perhaps there we will find more of this supposed Liberal Media.

The most obvious culprit of being called Liberal Media is MSNBC and NBC News programming in general. Many of the hosts of the various programs on MSNBC have made no secret that they have Liberal ties. Certainly they are more honest than the individuals on Fox, a channel that enjoys using the word Liberal as an insult and some sort of negative pejorative. But whereas Fox has no Liberals hosting its shows (and Bob Beckel does not count since he is part of a five person panel and not a host), MSNBC actually DOES have a Republican on its payroll as a host. The morning show Cup of Joe is hosted by Joe Scarborough, a former Congressman and outspoken Republican. That’s right, a Republican hosting a show on MSNBC, the “Liberal News Network”. It’s hard to believe in our polarized political environment. But more than being a nice sign of bi-partisanship, it is further proof that Liberals are not as in control of the media as people believe. If even the one identifiable Liberal News station is not exclusively Liberal then how can this claim of Liberal Media persist?

For the most part CNN and HLN, the other major News Networks tend to be pretty balanced. They have Liberal hosts and they have Conservative hosts and will usually draw the ire of both ideologies, complaining that the network is too far to the left or right whenever they hear something they disagree with. In reality, the bias people see in media tends to be a mere reflection of their own sense of entitlement. They have a unique view of the world and whenever the facts contradict this view, they assume it must be due to bias from the reporters, rather than simply the nature of reality. This habit seems to be more common in Conservatives than it is in Liberals.

Now being a Liberal, I admit I might be biased myself. But the many encounters I have had with Conservatives on message boards and Facebook pages have lead me to come to a very simple truth: Most Conservatives don’t know what Liberal actually means. That is to say, they don’t actually care what Liberal means. The word “Liberal” is merely a label they use to put a face to all that enrages them. If it is something they disagree with then it must be “Liberal” regardless of whether or not it is actually something reflected by Liberal ideology. Even things that are obviously Conservative will be called “Liberal” by Conservatives if it enrages them. I have seen Mitt Romney, Roger Ailes, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, and a host of other individuals called Liberals because they said something at one time or another that did not completely fall in line with Hard Right Republican values. I can assure you, if any of those people were Liberal then I would definitely not be. But they are not and so I am.

The problem with the Media is that it is an industry that exists solely on perception. So if the Media is Liberal it is only because people are perceiving it as so. It is not because it actually is. And as I explained in the previous paragraph, many people don’t know what Liberalism is. I’m not sure I completely know what it is either. I just know that the things I believe and agree with tend to be described as Liberal by people far more intelligent than myself. That doesn’t however mean I describe all the things I DON’T AGREE with as Conservative. Which in the end is the most important thing. We need to care about what WE are, not what the media or anything else tells us to be.