The Invention of ... "blasphemy"?

by

MTV Movies Blog reports that writer-directors Ricky Gervais and Matthew Robinson are "planning big controversies" with their upcoming film The Invention of Lying.

The film, which comes out October 2, takes place in a world where everyone believes everything that everyone says because no one has ever lied -- until, one day, the character played by Gervais figures out not only how to lie, but how to manipulate everyone else's gullibility for his own ends.

And what sort of "big controversies" do Gervais and Robinson have in mind?

The article quotes Robinson as saying:

"It's not in the trailer and it's a huge part of the film, but [Gervais] stumbles upon inventing something that in a world without lying wouldn't exist, which is probably going to piss a lot of people off."

Hmmm. That's not very specific. But perhaps there's a hint of what he's getting at in this interview with co-star Jennifer Garner over at Hitfix. Asked if she jumped at the chance to be in a movie with such a unique concept, she replies:

Yup. Well, I did have a moment to pause with would my parents think it was blasphemy, you know? . . . And then I talked to them about it, and they said, "We have a sense of humor. We're not humorless, you know? What do you think?" They were just like, "If it is important, do it. Do whatever you want." But that was it.

Hmmm. Still not very specific -- although, while discussing the challenges of coming up with dialogue for a world where no one has ever lied, she does go on to say:

Even little things like you can't really say gosh, because that's a derivative of God, which you'd never use because he didn't exist. You know, it's stuff like that. It really touches your language and the way you use language in a million different ways.

Hmmm again. And for what it's worth, the synopsis at the movie's official website declares:

In a world where every word is assumed to be the absolute truth, Mark easily lies his way to fame and fortune. But lies have a way of spreading, and Mark begins to realize that things are getting a little out of control when some of his tallest tales are being taken as, well, gospel.

Hmmm yet again. Finally, take a look at the trailer above. Around the one-minute mark, right after Gervais's character has figured out how to lie, there is a sudden rush of images. Here are most if not all of them, in the order in which they appear, more or less:

Hmmm. Notice any recurring themes?

Here's Gervais on how he became an atheist at the age of eight:

Rob Zombie to remake Christian movie!!

by

Well, not exactly. But Variety does report that the rock musician turned horror-movie director plans to direct a remake of The Blob. And CT sister publication Books & Culture did run an article last year exploring how the original 1958 version of that film was produced by a Christian film company determined to make a "wholesome horror film." (One of The Blob's producers, Russell S. Doughten Jr., went on to produce, write and act in a number of explicitly Christian films, including the end-times series that began with 1972's A Thief in the Night.)

And the Christian connections don't end there! The original movie spawned a sequel, 1972's Beware! The Blob, which featured Larry Norman and Randy Stonehill in bit parts. And the movie has been remade once before, by director Chuck Russell (The Mask, The Scorpion King), in 1988; and while I don't know anything about Russell's own religious persuasions, I do know that he was attached to direct the film version of Frank Peretti's This Present Darkness in the late 1990s, until 20th Century Fox pulled the plug on that project.

I certainly wouldn't expect Rob Zombie's version of The Blob, which will reportedly be R-rated, to follow in the "wholesome horror film" mode of the original movie. (The 1988 version was R-rated, too.) And I wouldn't necessarily expect Rob Zombie's film to feature Christian musicians in bit parts or whatever, either. But you never know.

A Few Films of Note

News on flicks that could be of interest to a Christian audience

by Mark Moring

A few movies recently released to DVD that Christian audiences might want to check out:

> Journey Films (Bonhoeffer, The Power of Forgiveness) has released Albert Schweitzer: Called to Africa , which it is billing as "the compelling story of a theologian, musician and philosopher who abandoned a life of fame and comfort in Europe at the age of 30 to dedicate his life to the medical care of Africans." (See the trailer here.)

> Sherwood Baptist (Fireproof, Facing the Giants) isn't the only church in the movie-making business. Others are also making their own films, including Bethesda Baptist Church of Brownsburg, IN, which recently released The Board to DVD. A press release says the film "captures the elements of life transforming films such as Chariots of Fire and Fireproof, telling the poignant story of how God speaks to each person’s soul. The Board explores the personal conflicts within, as represented by a board of directors, Mind, Emotion, Will, Memory, Conscience and Heart as it introduces difficult questions that lead to eternal consequences, exposing the board’s hypocritical foundation." (See the trailer here.)

> A "family version" of Henry Poole Is Here -- one of my favorite indie films from 2008 -- will be available Sept. from Anchor Bay Entertainment. The original PG version had some mild language, so there wasn't that much to edit in the first place, but if this means more people will see this gem, that's a good thing.

> The Biblical Dinner, self-described as "a Last Supper documentary," is now available on DVD.

> Christian music star Rebecca St. James has been doing a bit of acting lately. She plays the lead role in a pro-life film called Sarah's Choice, slated to release in November from PureFlix. She also recently wrapped filming in the comedy Rising Stars, a take-off on American Idol.

> The second in the Nomad Reality Films series, The Great Reverse, will be available Sept. 15 through INO Records/Provident-Integrity. The film follows nine young missionaries in their travels through west Africa. The first in the series was a documentary on Christian musician Sara Groves.

'Wickedly Entertaining'

A 'Basterds' screening at the Museum of Jewish Heritage prompts mostly positive reactions

by Mark Moring

When Harvey Weinstein and Quentin Tarantino showed Inglorious Basterds--a fictional film about Jews enacting brutal revenge on the Nazis--to a group that included children of Holocaust survivors, the reaction was mostly positive.

The Wall Street Journal was there when Miramax chief Weinstein and director Tarantino screened the film at the Museum of Jewish Heritage. Audience reactions included such sentiments as "wickedly entertaining" (from a rabbi!) and "I felt like Tarantino was a fellow Jew, just the way he made me feel so proud of the Basterds and the revenge against the Nazis."

The rabbi, Jonathan Blake of Westchester Reform Temple in Scarsdale, N.Y., likened the film's themes of blood-soaked vengeance to the Old Testament story of the Jews' long-running conflict with the Amalekites. According to the WSJ, "rabbinic tradition extends Amalek's descendants to some of the Jewish people's most-loathed oppressors, including the Roman emperors and Hitler."

Writer Jordana Horn noted that all of the audience members weren't so happy: "One young man noted that watching Nazis beg for their lives provided him with little satisfaction.

"The film does not pretend to be history and certainly does not make any attempt to be in sync with Jewish teachings. But it raises questions about the propriety of acts of retribution under Jewish law." It makes for a fascinating read.

Dungy Kicks off HS Football . . . in Theaters!

Former NFL coach presents a one-night special in theaters August 25

by Mark Moring

I love high school football, even though I never played the game. (Well, one year in youth league.) I've probably been to 300 high school games in my life -- you just can't beat it on a fall Friday night.

Tony Dungy, the former Super Bowl-winning coach of the Indianapolis Colts, loves high school football too, so he's helping America's 1.2 million players kick off the season with Tony Dungy's Red Zone '09, showing in theaters across the country for one night only -- Tuesday, August 25.

The live event, beamed via satellite into all those theaters, promises to "bring together some of the premier NFL players and coaches who will encourage high school players to step up their game. With highlights from NFL, college and high school games in HD on the 40 foot screen, this high impact setting puts everyone IN the game."

Dungy's RedZoneLive website adds that the event will "provide inspiration" and teach athletes to "play with passion and personal character development." What's just beneath the surface of those words is the fact that Dungy, one of the classiest coaches in NFL history, is a devout Christian who is serious about mentoring young men in character development, and always looking for opportunities to share his faith.

Watch the trailer:

Group Wants to End MPAA Ratings

Conservative 'Movieguide' launches petition to drop system and adopt another -- but what?

by Mark Moring

Movieguide, a very conservative Christian organization, has launched a petition to urge the MPAA to drop what it calls a "failed" ratings system and "return to a 'standards-based' Code of Decency," according to an article on its own site.

"The MPAA's ratings system never worked really well, but it has gotten much worse since it added the ambiguous PG-13 rating," said Movieguide founder Ted Baehr said. "Parents, especially mothers, can no longer trust the ratings for movies, especially in light of the PG-13 ratings for movies like THE LOVE GURU and LAND OF THE LOST, and the R ratings for pornographic movies like BRÜNO." (Just an aside here: Especially mothers. Huh? That's an insult to dads like me who care very much about teaching our children how to be discerning. Just the realm of "especially mothers"? Come on.)

Baehr claims that the MPAA ratings system is not "based on standards." Well, that's not exactly true . . .

The MPAA does have standards (you can read them here), but they're apparently not up to Baehr's standards, which he says are based on the "Code of Decency." He urges the MPAA to ditch its ratings system and return to this "Code."

Movieguide doesn't say what it means by the term "Code of Decency" -- at least not here. They referred to it here in calling for, among other things, the elimination of all R-rated movies and "most" PG-13 movies: "We support a return to the Moral Code of Decency and the vetting of all scripts for movies going to public theater and DVD retail within 20 years, if not in 3-5 years. That would probably include the elimination of all R-rated and NC-17 content as well as most PG-13 content."

Movieguide keeps capitalizing the term "Code of Decency" as if it's some official document or something, but it's not. (Go ahead and google it: You won't find it anywhere but at Movieguide -- and at places quoting them.) Perhaps they are referring to the old Motion Picture Production Code (aka the Hays Code), which was in effect from 1930 to 1964 and included such requirements as these:

> "No picture shall be produced that will lower the moral standards of those who see it." (Wow. Who's going to determine that arbitrary criteria?)

> "Correct standards of life . . . shall be presented." (Again, according to whom?)

Or, perhaps, Movieguide was referring to the National Legion of Decency, which was even stricter than the Production Code. The Legion of Decency, founded by a Catholic Archbishop in 1933, put every film into one of three categories: "morally unobjectionable," "morally objectionable in part," and "Condemned by the Legion of Decency." That system has since been slightly revised by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' Office for Film and Broadcasting; you can read its current ratings guidelines here.

So I'm not sure if Movieguide, when calling for a "Code of Decency," is referring to the Hays Code, the Legion of Decency, some blend of both, or something of Movieguide's own making. (Perhaps they want to call all the shots?) They're unclear. But when you're calling for the abolition of something -- in this case, the MPAA's rating system -- you're obliged to be clear what you want to replace it.

Don't get me wrong: I'm the first to acknowledge that MPAA's system is flawed, and some of its ratings seem way off the mark. Many people have opined how to fix it -- even suggesting to scrap it and start all over. I'm fine with that discussion, and I think the motion picture industry should be open to any suggestions on how to fix it. But any such suggestion needs to offer a specific solution, not merely a mention of a nebulous "Code."

Movieguide's article quotes Baehr as saying that "the entertainment industry must return to the kind of system it had during the Golden Age of Hollywood and the Golden Age of Television, when it was a wonderful life in America because Mr. Smith went to Washington, Ricky still loved Lucy, and the Bells of St. Mary's rang out across the whole land." That's all well and good, but again, where is the definition of this "system"? A link, please? (A minor quibble here: Is Ricky and Lucy's marriage really a model? Seems like many, if not most, of the episodes involved one of them deceiving the other. Funny, yes. But still, deceit was the rule.)

Finally, the petition itself simply states: "I sign my name to the official petition filed by Movieguide to end the MPAA Rating System and instead establish standards-based ratings which are not controlled by the entertainment studios."

That's it. It does not specify what should replace the MPAA's system, except that whatever it is should not be controlled by the entertainment studios. While there's certainly merit in the call for a system that isn't "controlled by the entertainment studios," I think it would behoove the potential petition signer to know precisely what he/she is signing up for, rather than merely what he/she is signing against. Is Baehr suggesting that he and/or Movieguide should set the ratings? And if so, does that mean the elimination of all R-rated and most PG-13 movies, as they have called for? Heaven forbid.

Yes, the MPAA system is flawed, and it should be held up to scrutiny. It's a system that does make mistakes and errors in judgment. But ultimately, whether it's the MPAA's standards or Movieguide's or some nebulous "Code of Decency," the ultimate responsibility lies with parents, who must do the necessary research into films before deciding whether or not they -- or their children -- will see a particular film.

It's irresponsible to rely on a single "rating" to make an informed decision. A moviegoer must know himself/herself (or his/her children), must know his/her conscience (and their children's), his/her sensitivities (and their children's), and his/her level of maturity -- spiritually, emotionally, psychologically -- before deciding whether a film is appropriate or not. And no simple rating system alone can do that.

Some people like to think that they can decide what's right for everyone; we get enough e-mails here to validate that, e-mails essentially saying, "NO Christian should EVER watch such-and-such a movie, and if they do, they're clearly not a Christian, or they've deceived themselves and are headed straight to hell." Seriously.

The MPAA's ratings system is far from perfect, but for me, anyway, it's just one tool in a process of learning to discern. I've never decided to see a movie (or not) based solely on its rating (with NC-17 being an exception, of course). I've never ruled out a movie simply because it's rated R, and I've never assumed a G or PG movie is "safe for the whole family." That's irresponsible.

Good discernment is more than just a snap judgment based on a couple of letters, numbers, or stars. Good discernment requires more digging to be better informed.

What do you think? Would you sign that petition? Is the MPAA's rating system broken? If so, how would you fix it? Should it be scrapped altogether? If so, what would you replace it with?

We'd love to hear your comments. And keep your opinions and disagreements civil, please.

8/20 UPDATE:
The folks at Movieguide, partly out of response of this call for more clarity, have updated their petition with more specifics about suggestions for how they would replace the MPAA system. There are some good suggestions in their new list, so it's a start. The proposed solutions are more specific than they were the other day, when I first blogged about this, so I appreciate their clarifications.

Still, some of their suggestions could be difficult to enforce or interpret. No. 4, for example, says, "Detailed and protracted acts of brutality, cruelty, physical violence, torture, and abuse shall not be presented." If so, we'd have no films like The Passion of The Christ, Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan, Braveheart, and many more -- unless those films were toned down in such a way as to not graphically present such horrors . . . and then I'm not sure how "true" such films would be to their subject matter. Similarly, No. 2 reads, "Evil, sin, crime, and wrongdoing shall not be justified." While there's a seed of a good idea in there, I'm not sure it's realistic, and it depends on what is meant by "justified." Can sin be depicted in movies? I would certainly hope so; how else can a filmmaker illustrated the reality of a fallen world in need of redemption. Does it mean that the sinner shouldn't be depicted as "getting away with it"? I hope not, because that certainly happens in the real world all the time -- another indication of our fallen nature. Does it mean that filmmakers should at least pause before depicting habitual sin without consequence? I'd be a bit more likely to nod at that sentiment, but even then, there would have to be exceptions.

The point: Even if the flawed MPAA system is overthrown, and an outside group determines the standards instead, there will never be a perfect system, there will always be debate about what the ratings/standards really mean and how they can be interpreted, and so on. I'm all for improving the current system, but I'm also convinced that no system will satisfy everyone. But I'll give Movieguide a hat tip for continuing the conversation and at least looking for answers.

What do you think? Read Movieguide's proposed changes, and let us know your thoughts. Sign their petition if you're comfortable with it; if you're not, feel free to offer criticism, but offer solutions too. And not just here; let Movieguide know too. It's a conversation worth having.

(Image above from Movieguide's website.)

Committed actor wrecks pastor's antique cabinet

by

Pastors beware! If you're a clergyman and you're thinking of letting a film crew into your home or office, be prepared for the odd bit of property damage -- at least if the film stars Hugh Dancy, the star of this summer's acclaimed romantic drama Adam.

In the film, Dancy plays a man with a form of autism called Asperger's syndrome, and in one scene he throws a fit that causes him to get a bit violent with the furniture -- and apparently Dancy got so carried away that he accidentally kicked his foot through an antique cabinet.

Writer-director Max Mayer tells WENN: "It was actually the pastor's apartment in the church on the Upper West Side (in Manhattan). That was awful because from my standpoint with our limited budget we were using somebody's house and I had pointed out to Hugh things that he could destroy and the things he couldn't, which included this antique cabinet, and he put his foot through it on the first take. I'm thinking, 'How much is that gonna cost? Can I cut a scene out tomorrow to make up for it?'"

Dancy himself describes what happened this way: "I was kind of roused and I put my foot through a piece of furniture -- I slammed my foot through the front of a cabinet. I felt even though everybody was quiet because we were filming, an even greater hush descended on the room and it dawned on me that the furniture belonged to the person whose house we were using."

Fortunately, says Mayer, it all seems to have worked out in the end: "The family was fantastic and we mended the cabinet, so, as far as I know, they weren't unhappy with us. They got some new colours on their walls."

Newsbites: The religious women edition!

by

1. Mary Mother of Christ has a new director, and a couple new cast members as well. The last time we heard about the film, which will feature Al Pacino as Herod the Great and is based on a script by Benedict Fitzgerald and Barbara Nicolosi, it was going to be directed by Alejandro Agresti; now, however, the director is James Foley, who previously directed Pacino in Glengarry Glen Ross (1992) and Two Bits (1995). In other news, Portuguese actor Diogo Morgado (pictured here) has been cast as Joseph, and Julia Ormond has also joined the cast in an as-yet-undisclosed role. Principal photography, once set to begin a few months ago, is now slated for October. -- Hollywood Reporter

2. Joe Eszterhas, the Basic Instinct (1992) and Showgirls (1995) screenwriter who converted to Catholicism several years ago, will write a screenplay about the Virgin of Guadalupe for Mpower Pictures, the production company founded two years ago by Passion of the Christ (2004) producer Steve McEveety. The film will concern an apparition of the Virgin Mary that is said to have helped Catholicism spread across Mexico in the 16th century. -- Variety, Hollywood Reporter, Associated Press

3. Uma Thurman will play a real-life nun who helped rescue over 100 kidnapped schoolgirls from Ugandan rebels in Girl Soldier, based on a book by Canadian journalist Kathy Cook called Stolen Angels. -- Variety

Cliff Clavin, Hercules in Christian flick

John Ratzenberger, Kevin Sorbo in film made by Dallas and Jerry Jenkins

by Mark Moring

Jenkins Entertainment recently finished shooting for its next film What If..., starring Kevin Sorbo (Hercules) and John Ratzenberger (Cliff Clavin on Cheers).

According to a press release, the movie, the sixth film from the father/son duo of Jerry and Dallas Jenkins, "tells the story of Ben Walker (Sorbo) who 15 years ago left the love of his life . . . and ignored his ministry calling in order to pursue a business opportunity. Now, as a high-powered investment banker with a trophy fiancée, he has little or no interest in faith or building a family.

"But . . . Ben is visited by a mysterious (divine, perhaps?) tow truck driver (Ratzenberger) who knocks Ben into an alternative reality -- the life he should have had. Ben awakens on a Sunday with his wife Wendy and two daughters getting ready for church, where Ben is scheduled to give his first sermon as the new pastor. If Ben wants to escape this What If... scenario, he must first learn the value of faith and family."

What If ... is the first in a two-picture partnership between Jenkins Entertainment and Pure Flix Entertainment. Jenkins Entertainment is owned by New York Times bestselling author Jerry B. Jenkins and operated by his son Dallas Jenkins.

Dem Bones

Trailer for Peter Jackson's 'The Lovely Bones' is a stunner

by Mark Moring

The new trailer for The Lovely Bones is now up at Apple. It's pretty awesome.

The film looks ripe for great discussion, based on the official synopsis: "The Lovely Bones centers on a young girl who has been murdered and watches over her family – and her killer – from heaven. She must weigh her desire for vengeance against her desire for her family to heal."

Between that and a sensational cast that includes Rachel Weisz, Mark Wahlberg, Susan Sarandon, Stanley Tucci, and the immensely talented Saoirse Ronan, who made such an auspicious debut in Atonement that she was nominated for an Academy Award.

And the biggest cartoon of all time overseas is ...

by

For proof, if you needed it, that the animation business is no longer owned by Disney or any of its subsidiaries, look no further than Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs. According to the Hollywood Reporter, the third film in this prehistoric series has now passed Finding Nemo to become the top-grossing cartoon of all time overseas. Variety even notes that IA:DotD is poised to become only the ninth film ever -- live-action or otherwise -- to gross over $600 million in the "foreign" market.*

It's a much different story in North America, where IA:DotD currently ranks 21st among animated films and 117th among movies in general. And when you combine the "domestic" and "foreign" grosses, IA:DotD currently ranks 5th among animated films worldwide, behind Shrek 2, Finding Nemo, Shrek the Third and The Lion King.

Still, however you look at it, the success of this film is a striking example of how computerized animation has taken over the business and, in some sense, levelled out the playing field. As I noted in my review of the original Ice Age seven years ago, successful animated films at that time had largely consisted of movies that were produced in partnership with Disney (e.g. the Pixar films) or in explicit rivalry with Disney (e.g. the DreamWorks films) -- but Ice Age and its sequels, which are produced by 20th Century Fox, don't appear to have given Disney a moment's thought. They're just there -- and audiences have been turning out for them in droves.

It's also a striking example of just how important the overseas market has become to the Hollywood studios. In the months before, say, Angels & Demons came out, people would sometimes ask me, "Why are they making a sequel to The Da Vinci Code? I thought the first film wasn't all that successful." Well, as it happens, The Da Vinci Code did do decent business in North America ($217.5 million), but it did much, much better overseas ($540.7 million), and sure enough, Angels & Demons has followed a similar template, earning about two-and-a-half times as much overseas ($348.6 million) as it did in North America ($133 million).

Or, to return to the field of animation, consider this: Jeffrey Katzenberg, who runs the show at DreamWorks (and who ran the show at Disney during their "renaissance" in the late '80s and early '90s), said last week that he wasn't sure whether there would be a sequel to Monsters vs. Aliens, even though the film still ranks ahead of IA:DotD in North America -- and why wasn't he sure? Because MvA actually made less money overseas than it did at home. "Domestically it has performed at a level that would surely qualify it as a sequel, and internationally it did not," he said. "This is the first movie we've had that's right on the bubble."

Financial success, here or abroad, says nothing about a movie's artistic merit, of course. But the growing importance of the foreign market is something to keep in mind, whenever the conversation turns to Hollywood and what might motivate the studios to do something or other.

* The other eight films that have grossed over $600 million overseas are: Titanic, the third Lord of the Rings, the last two Pirates of the Caribbeans and four of the first five Harry Potters.

The Invention of ... "blasphemy"?

Rob Zombie to remake Christian movie!!

A Few Films of Note

'Wickedly Entertaining'

Dungy Kicks off HS Football . . . in Theaters!

Group Wants to End MPAA Ratings

Committed actor wrecks pastor's antique cabinet

Newsbites: The religious women edition!

Cliff Clavin, Hercules in Christian flick

Dem Bones