The state of Contemporary Christian music has reached a deplorable new low. I am not a huge fan of disparaging things Christian, but I am a bit shocked at this. Heard on “The Fish,” LA’s Christian music radio station: what I believe was a remake of Celine Dion’s “Because You Loved Me.” The only difference? The singer had inserted “Jesus” as a “filler word” in the last chorus. The joke that you could take Christian songs and replace “Jesus” with “Baby” has been actualized, and it’s rather disturbing.

Celine Dion’s song is not a particularly horrible song. In fact, for what it is, it is quite effective. Cheesy lyrics, predictable music, all designed to heighten your emotional state as you dwell on the man (or woman) whom you love so dearly. “Baptizing” it by inserting “Jesus” (a) seems inconsistent with the Christian tradition of “baptizing,” which meant something like creating new works of art in an existing form that had Christian content, (b) demonstrates a complete lack of creativity on the part the Christian community, (c) doesn’t help anyone escape the association of Celine Dion singing to her man “You were my strength when I was weak…” If their only goal was to help us escape Celine, that might have been beneficial. As it is, it demonstrates that the Christian Contemporary Music scene has reached new lows in creativity.

When will Christians wake up and demand tasteful music that has content?

Jim (Matt’s brother) writes:
But then you’ve got films like On the Waterfront, which is political, entertaining, and artistic at the same time. (It also has one of the most sympathetic, perhaps most realistic Hollywood portrayals of a man of the cloth–and it’s not unfair to add “religious” as a description.) Why should a producer, or a viewer, have to choose which one is most important?

Point well taken. I don’t object to the combination of art and entertainment, it’s the combination of entertainment and politics, or art and politics, or really politics and anything that I’m not overly fond of. I’m convinced that politics is the ugliest part of human activity whose necessity will be vanquished the moment we die.

On The Waterfront is satisfying because it works on so many levels. I agree, the depiction of the socially conscious priest is one of the best I’ve seen in cinema history. The part I find least satisfying, however, is the political angle of the film. There is not real, legitmate doubt that Kazan made the film in part as a response to his critics concerning his decision to testify before the House Un-American Activities Committee. It’s this politcal angle that allows people to question the film’s intent. How much is truly and expression of Kazan’s view of the world? How much is a rationalization for his choices? How much of his statement is blinded by hatred or the inclination to defend himself?

Politics has the ugly habit of getting its hands everywhere. Especially in places an unassuming individual might not expect it.

I’m reminded of Dagny Taggart and Hank Reardon’s struggle to make the John Galt Line in Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged”. The John Galt rail is the only thing that will keep the country from economically drying up, the problem is that the government has turned the public against the rail with cleverly worded reports that suggest the rail might not be safe for travel. The political machine does this through a “independent” scientific research institute. The reseach institute was set up to exist apart from any political machinations that might conflict with the progress of real, pure science. The public is supposed to trust the opinions of the scientific organization as a “disinterested” party. The conflict is this: the government funded “independent” research lab has been researching a newer, stronger metal for 15 years and millions of tax dollars. Hank Reardon’s new metal for the Galt Line shows that a capitalistic venture is able to beat the goverment lab without all the tax dollars. If the public sees the inefficiency of the system they’re paying for, the Science Institute will be shut down– so they play the machine’s politcal games, give bogus safety reports about the John Galt Line and Reardon Metal, thus undermining their purpose, but solidifying their existence.

I suppose one could assume the point is that even with the purest intentions, politcal ties are inescapable. I’m just not ready to concede that.

I think there is such a thing as pure art and pure science. Pure art comes when, unswayed by the politics of the moment, an artist looks to his subject to discover the truth of its existence and something true of its essence. Pure science comes as an exploration into the fabric of the universe without catering to one group’s political agenda or anothers, even if that refusal comes at the cost of its own existence. This is where the idea of the suffering artist comes from, as well as artists’ facination with martyrdom. When paying the dearest cost for a cause one can be most clear of their intentions. That isn’t to say that a suffering artist is always a true artist or that true artists must always suffer; there are many things that can cause suffering, but shirking a political life in pursuit of a goal make one vulnerable to a good deal of attack.

Of course, The Day After Tomorrow is much worse. If it intends to “bring the issue of global warming” more to people’s minds it does so by the use of bogus science which amounts to nothing less than a giant scare tactic. I don’t think that democrats are likely to table the war in Iraq issue to launch and environmental offensive on the Bush administration, so the effects of the film will be politically limited. It’s just the fact that these bogus storytellers may have the gual to suggest that this fiction, pure fiction, should help sway people on environmental issues that should be settled by merits of science.

I think there is such a thing as politically unswayed entertainment as well. The unswayed entertainer, of course, often fairs better than the unswayed artist by the nature of their products– which is what makes what TDAT is doing all the more dispicable.

I’m convinced that Heaven will be a place that’s free from politics.

Sometimes I just wish that the world wasn’t so interconnected all the time. For example–The Day After Tomorrow is going to be a crappy Roland Emerich big budget, no story, summer blockbuster of a movie with epic special effects in the place of decently developed characters. People will see it because it looks somewhat interesting. It will open at number one, linger in the top 5 for a week or two ten quickly fall off the charts and out of mind. If the world wasn’t so connected, that would be the long and short of the whole dumb movie story.

But things are connected, and politics get involved.

Now, instead of letting the movie slip in and out of the public consciousness within a 3 or 4 week period, I have to hear all the political hype surrounding the picture for months before, and probably months afterward.

Democrats (Moveon.org) are saying this is “the picture the White House doesn’t want you to see– go see this film”. The film’s producer, is being pleasantly ambiguous about the film’s intentions, though some have reported Jeffery Godsick (VP of Publicity, FOX) as saying “the real power of this film is to raise consciousness about the issue of global warming.”

Everything would just be so much more pleasant if a movie producer had one goal, and he stated that goal outright–and the people going to see the film had one thing in mind. If it’s a political film let people think politics, if it’s entertainment, let them be entertained, if it’s art, let them experience it as such. It just gets ugly when everyone wants to co-opt whatever looks to be the next thing to push their agenda further.

On another note, I doubt democrats are going to have much luck with TDAT, the film looks like a real stinker, so chuck full of obvious psuedo-science even the simplest of voting citizens should be able to write at least the movie off as ridiculous.

I heard on “Marketplace” (NPR) that Krispy Kreme is posting its first loss since it went public four years ago. The immediate culprit? Low-carb diets. C’mon people. Don’t eat bread if you must, but Krispy Kreme? Live a litle!

Seriously, it’s phenomenal to see how the food industry is being shaped by the Atkins craze. It will be interesting to see companies adapt themselves to the new environment–it will be even more interesting to see if the “anti-carb” environment lasts.

>> http://movies.yahoo.com/cannes/news/apc/20040522/108525912000.html

Really looking forward to seeing this one. From what I hear, it does an interesting thing with the “documentary” category– it’s a documentary not based on facts, but based on questions.

I’m not a very political person, but I think Moore is a buffoon. Anyone who accuses a United States President of having terrorist connections (as his film accuses Bush) with hopes that those accusations will influence people’s minds in the next election, without basing those accusations on hard and verifiable facts is a fool.

How this “documentary” holds itself together is likely the best explanation of why Moore deserves Europe’s highest cinematic honor. He’s doing something new here, stretching the medium, basing a documentary on questions, not on facts.

I’ll be interested to go see the film and write an informed opinion.

“THR: So part of the agenda of this film is to influence the election?

Moore: Oh, sure, and (to influence events) after the election because the problems we have are still going to be with us regardless of who’s in the White House… (The film is) not just about “Let’s get rid of Bush.” I wouldn’t go see that kind of movie. My time is limited — I don’t have to go sit in a theater for two hours to know that Bush has to go. We decided not to make that kind of movie — boring and predictable. We decided to make it about the larger issues, about where we are right now as a people after 9/11. The film spends a lot of time posing questions, not necessarily providing answers, but asking the audience to join in and try to figure out what the answer is. When we tested the film in the Midwest, people were moved in a profound way and left the theater thinking about their personal responsibility in terms of acting and behaving like a citizen in a democracy.”

I think it’s a filmmaker’s responsibility to get down to the truth of the matter where a verifiable truth can be found. To merely raise doubt and “get people thinking” is a coward’s trick.

Decorabilia

A shout out to my brother for a great blog with always interesting reading and a great conversation about the role and limits of science. Check out the post “She blinded me with science” (where does he get the cool names?) and the comments.

The Nazi Seduction

Check out the interesting book review brought to us by Books and Culture. The book reviewed is a Hitler and the Power of Aesthetics in which Frederic Spotts argues that the “will to power” and aesthetic sensibility of Hitler are what continue to draw us to him.

It raises a number of crucial issues:

1) Hitler understood that he was not fighting a war, but building a culture, and a necessary component of that was the arts. He seems to have understood that what captivated people was not simply ideas, but ideas expressed in art, and he used this to his advantage. The German intellectual tradition from Hegel to Schopenauer and Nietzsche centered on both the will and aesthetics. One does not need read very much Nietzsche to discover this–his writing style is more poetical than philosophical. However, the supremacy of the “will to power” and the rejection of transcendentals clearly had devestating results. Aesthetics divorced from Truth leads to propoganda and manipulation, as Hitler’s regime clearly demonstrates.

2) Jean Bethke Elshtain (the reviewer) seems disconcerted that Hitler was not a “yokel.” Why should we expect him to be? He nearly conquered the world, something that the “yokels” I know (I am one!) are not concerned with at all. Few of us are even very concerned with conquering ourselves. The story of Hitler illustrates that “yokels” do not do very much damage or very much good–it is men who are large souls, men with strong aesthetic sensibilities who do immense amounts of good or evil.

“Here I find myself in the middle of twenty years largely wasted…..”

Eliot just captures it perfectly. As I graduate from university, I am struck by the amount of time wasted. “Redeem the time,” says Paul, “for the days are evil.” However the days are, the time is precious. Books unread, prayers unprayed, movements not started, changes not brought about–all left to “what might have been.”

It is a difficult thing to face, the feeling that your life is wasting away. I can’t imagine how hard the feeling will be when I’m forty, and am wondering why I haven’t done more with my life. Four years of time wasted is hard enough–forty will be unbearable.

The danger we face isn’t leaving a bad legacy–it’s leaving no legacy at all.

Hadley Arkes on Gay Marriage & Massachusetts on National Review Online

Homosexual marriages are happening in Massachusetts. Anyone wondering about the argument surrounding the Massuchusetts Supreme Court’s decision should read the above article. Hadley Arkes is a clear-headed thinker whom I’m told “liberals” fear. He is America’s leading professor of jurisprudence, and the above article sheds a lot of light on the mishandling of the Massachussetts constitution that has occurred.

Clearly the Minister’s Quartet released this album at a more innocent time in our nation’s history.

Gosh.

Studio Briefing 05/17/04;

“The Walt Disney Co. is planning to turn another one of its theme-park attractions into a movie — this time, it’s the Jungle Cruise. “It’s completely inspired by and relates to the ride and will contain elements of the ride in the story,” producer David Hoberman told today’s (Monday) Hollywood Reporter. Disney has had mixed results in converting theme-park rides into movies, scoring strongly with Pirates of the Caribbean, but drawing relatively small crowds with films based on its Haunted Mansion and Bear Country attractions.”

It’s embarassing how this company is so obviously plundering anything they can get their hands on in an attempt to scrape up a hit movie. Pirates was great, but what on God’s green earth gave them any indication that The Haunted Mansion, Country Bears, or The Jungle Cruise would be able to draw an audience???

The kind of studio exec. thinking that goes into these mindless decisions is less than encouraging.

I just returned from seeing the flick. Clunky dialogue and poor acting performances certainly lessened the quality, although Orlando Bloom provided a number of good laughs (unintentionally, of course).

Troy is a “period film” in dress and plot only. Themes of romantic love seem more dependant upon 15th-century courtly love traditions than upon anything Greek. The gods will certainly be dissatisfied with the lip-service they get in the film–Priam’s visit to Achilles, which in the Iliad only happens with the gods help is left unexplained by the film. A robust skepticism about the Greek pantheon is expressed by both Hector and Achilles. About the only content (other than the basic plot) that resembles the Greek story is the emphasis on glory and immortality. Other than that, it barely resembles (in meaning) Homer’s Iliad.