Seismically or slightly, everything's shifting: social media, anti-racism, moral art critiques, and the Christian fiction label... This month's most thought-worthy takes.
Thanks for engaging with my piece on 'Babylon,' Daniel! I appreciate the signal boost. When you say you suspect I might have done some cherry-picking to prove my point, are you referring to my selection of secular reviews or Christian reviews?
Also, for clarification, when I write about the pornification of mainstream entertainment, I typically focus on sexualized nudity and that which is euphemistically called "simulated sex." Broadly speaking, nudity in art is not *necessarily* immoral, although nudity in modern-day film tends to be sexualized in some form or fashion. All that to say, my problem in hearing about 'Oppenheimer' wasn't just that there might be nudity (in a generic sense), but hypersexualized nudity (which, as it turns out, actually was the case).
Anyway, I hope you enjoy my "Christopher Nolan in Three Acts" piece when you get the time! (A cup of tea to accompany the read sounds like a good idea.)
I was definitely mostly thinking about the Christian reviews.... but was it both?
Where I'm concerned about nudity-in-entertainment is what the Christian response to it reveals about our pre-notions of the world, and the underlying views we bring to the critic's table. (Perhaps some skewed theological remnants are in play.) But more to come on that.
Gotcha. Well, as I explained in my piece, the Christian reviews I looked for needed to fit into at least one of three categories: 1) mainstream publications, 2) prevalent podcasts, and 3) film critics with a verifiable membership in an American film critic organization. (I found a few other reviews by professing Christians--some positive and some negative--but they were from obscure blogs with limited audiences.) There were only seven Christian film critics who met my requirements, and I quoted every one of them. If I somehow missed a prominent Christian review that denounced the film, definitely send me a link; I'm open to adding an addendum that points to any material I overlooked.
As to the secular reviews, my attempts to avoid cherry-picking included acknowledging the differences of opinion on Rotten Tomatoes (which I directly linked to), and clarifying that I was looking for reviews that specifically mentioned the explicit sexuality in the film. If you think I could have further avoided an appearance of cherry picking, I'm open to any specific feedback you might have.
In any case, I look forward to your further commentary on nudity-in-entertainment. Thanks for your thoughts!
I'm not overly-concerned about possible cherry-picking -- by the parameters you set, your assessment is likely correct -- except that the outcome seems convenient.
I'm primarily interested in the idea that the "Christian critic" (or even the casual Christian viewer) *should* have a particular kind of response to a film like Babylon (or certain scenes in it), and what that says about the different levels on which art is evaluated (or supposed to be evaluated).
I guess a good follow-up question to that is, should there be a Christian response to that which is pornographic? Or should followers of Christ be free to take different positions on the matter?
The short, uncomplicated answer is: requiring all Christians to have a unified, singular response to a work of art is impossible and impractical. People (incl Christians) view the same thing from different vantage points.
I totally agree with you. That is a general principle that holds true across all art forms. What I am zeroing in on, however, is the use of a "porn aesthetic" (to borrow a phrase from professor and author Shelton Waldrep) in the visual arts. Can we both agree that genuine works of artistry can sometimes be infused with certain scenes that employ pornographic content? And should the Christian response to pornographic content be so flexible as to include different "vantage points"?
Thanks so much for the shout, Daniel!
Thanks for engaging with my piece on 'Babylon,' Daniel! I appreciate the signal boost. When you say you suspect I might have done some cherry-picking to prove my point, are you referring to my selection of secular reviews or Christian reviews?
Also, for clarification, when I write about the pornification of mainstream entertainment, I typically focus on sexualized nudity and that which is euphemistically called "simulated sex." Broadly speaking, nudity in art is not *necessarily* immoral, although nudity in modern-day film tends to be sexualized in some form or fashion. All that to say, my problem in hearing about 'Oppenheimer' wasn't just that there might be nudity (in a generic sense), but hypersexualized nudity (which, as it turns out, actually was the case).
Anyway, I hope you enjoy my "Christopher Nolan in Three Acts" piece when you get the time! (A cup of tea to accompany the read sounds like a good idea.)
Thanks again!
I was definitely mostly thinking about the Christian reviews.... but was it both?
Where I'm concerned about nudity-in-entertainment is what the Christian response to it reveals about our pre-notions of the world, and the underlying views we bring to the critic's table. (Perhaps some skewed theological remnants are in play.) But more to come on that.
Gotcha. Well, as I explained in my piece, the Christian reviews I looked for needed to fit into at least one of three categories: 1) mainstream publications, 2) prevalent podcasts, and 3) film critics with a verifiable membership in an American film critic organization. (I found a few other reviews by professing Christians--some positive and some negative--but they were from obscure blogs with limited audiences.) There were only seven Christian film critics who met my requirements, and I quoted every one of them. If I somehow missed a prominent Christian review that denounced the film, definitely send me a link; I'm open to adding an addendum that points to any material I overlooked.
As to the secular reviews, my attempts to avoid cherry-picking included acknowledging the differences of opinion on Rotten Tomatoes (which I directly linked to), and clarifying that I was looking for reviews that specifically mentioned the explicit sexuality in the film. If you think I could have further avoided an appearance of cherry picking, I'm open to any specific feedback you might have.
In any case, I look forward to your further commentary on nudity-in-entertainment. Thanks for your thoughts!
I'm not overly-concerned about possible cherry-picking -- by the parameters you set, your assessment is likely correct -- except that the outcome seems convenient.
I'm primarily interested in the idea that the "Christian critic" (or even the casual Christian viewer) *should* have a particular kind of response to a film like Babylon (or certain scenes in it), and what that says about the different levels on which art is evaluated (or supposed to be evaluated).
I guess a good follow-up question to that is, should there be a Christian response to that which is pornographic? Or should followers of Christ be free to take different positions on the matter?
The short, uncomplicated answer is: requiring all Christians to have a unified, singular response to a work of art is impossible and impractical. People (incl Christians) view the same thing from different vantage points.
I totally agree with you. That is a general principle that holds true across all art forms. What I am zeroing in on, however, is the use of a "porn aesthetic" (to borrow a phrase from professor and author Shelton Waldrep) in the visual arts. Can we both agree that genuine works of artistry can sometimes be infused with certain scenes that employ pornographic content? And should the Christian response to pornographic content be so flexible as to include different "vantage points"?