I had been preparing you for over a year for Star Wars: The Force Awakens. The time finally came this past Saturday.
Easily, I can say in confidence, it was one of my most epic experiences as a parent, to watch Star Wars: The Force Awakens for the first time, together with you.
We arrived about an hour before the movie as supposed to begin. Even though it had been out in theatres for a month already, I wasn’t willing to risk not getting a good seat, or any seat at all.
Good thing I approached the situation the way I did. We were there at the 4:05 matinee when, technically, the least amount of people are supposed to be interested in seeing a movie.
When we walked in, there were only about 15 or 20 seats taken; so we got our choice seats.
But within 30 minutes, the only seats remaining were the 3 separate front rows, where the floor is flat and you have to look straight up at the screen.
So the good news was that we got good seats by being there an hour before show time.
The bad news was that the commercials and previews started at “show time”, meaning that we were sitting there for close to an hour and a half before Star Wars actually began, meaning we both had to “go potty” as the show was finally beginning. That was the downside of making sure we were fully hydrated for the movie.
However, the movie was so enthralling that we made it through the entire movie, which was 2 hours and 16 minutes; we stayed all the way until the credit ended.
The whole time, you sat on my lap. Each time a new character appeared, you would whisper to me, “Daddy, is that a good guy or a bad guy?”
That’s an especially relevant question when watching a Star Wars movie, when that’s one of the underlying themes in most Star Wars movies anyway: Is he a good guy or a bad guy?
During the most intense action scenes, you would sit straight up on my knee. You were so into it!
I am so happy were you born in 2010; making you 5 years-old when the first new J.J. Abrams/Disney Star Wars movie came out.
That is the perfect age for you to start watching these movies with me.
Having seen all the previous Star Wars movie, I must say that this new one was everything I’d hope it would be.
I was so impressed. I can’t wait for us to watch it when it comes to Redbox. Mommy is pretty intrigued by us talking about it so much, that now she looks forward to seeing it with us.
It would be boring and cliché of me to illustrate how, as a child of the 80s, Stars Wars was a big part of my childhood and therefore, how I’m excited to take my own son to see the new Star Wars movie. So I won’t.
Granted, I’m going to take him to see it… at some point, after it’s been out a while.
But I will not be rushing out to be one of the first to see it.
Here’s why: I don’t trust crazy people enough.
And it appears I’m not alone in how I feel. Just yesterday, the New York Times published this article:
Between all the mentally ill and armed Americans as well as ISIS members targeting crowded venues, I am for good reason expecting to see a headline on MSN about how there was a mass attack (whether shooting or bombing) at a movie theater where Star Wars: The Force Awakens was showing.
My hope is that by talking about it now, I can jinx that from happening. I definitely want to be wrong about this.
Unfortunately, I’ve seen enough in my lifetime to know the likelihood of an attack during the new Star Wars movie is decent.
Maybe part of it is my age and where I am in life, but I care a lot less about going to see movies than I did compared to when I was in my 20s.
I used to go to the movies every couple of weekends. But since August 2012, when there was the mass shooting during The Dark Knight, my eagerness has dwindled.
For me, it’s just common sense not to be where a big crowd is in relation to a special event with a lot of hype, like a new legendary movie coming out.
I’ll wait until maybe January to take my soon to see it.
It’s not that I live in fear of crazy people with guns or ISIS, but I can do my part to avoid being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
My point is not “I’m never going to the movies again because mass shootings or bombings may occur.”
Instead, my point is “I’m not going to one of the biggest movie premieres of my lifetime, in an age where mentally ill and armed Americans as well as ISIS members are targeting crowded venues.”
I’ll just wait until the theaters are less packed.
Seems like a strange pair, but we born-again Christians love our movies and TV just as much as everyone else. But where do we draw the line?
One of my favorite TV shows during 4th and 5th grade was surprisingly The Dick Van Dyke Show as it was featured in syndication on Nick at Nite. It was while watching that show (I was around 9 or 10) that it occurred to me, “Dick Van Dyke is kissing Mary Tyler Moore, but in real life, they may both be married to someone else who has to watch them kiss another person.” To me, that would just be too weird… and wrong. As much I fantasize about being an actor in a flash-sideways version of my life in some alternate path I could have chosen for myself a decade ago, I have to acknowledge that as a born-again Christian, there would be an exhaustive list of limitations for me as a legitimate actor. (Granted, Kirk Cameron got around the “have to kiss another woman” dilemma when he used his own wife as a stand-in at the end of the movie Fireproof.)
That’s not to say that there aren’t born-again Christians who act in mainstream media. For example, there’s the often-mistaken-as-a-Jew-but-actually-just-Welsh-American actor Zachary Levi, who is the protagonist of the hit show Chuck. He has been outspoken about his relationship with Jesus Christ. Click here to see what he said in one of his interviews with Relevant magazine. I am fascinated by his Hollywood success and his commitment to his faith. I would love to ask him about this very topic today; specifically this question, “As a Christian, what won’t you do in a role?” (Zachary Levi, if you’re reading this, feel free to comment and help me out. Thanks.)
Where does a Christian draw the line when it comes to acting? I would say kissing another person on stage is harmless except when either or both of them is married. And what about “love scenes” (scenes that involve sexual activity, with or without nudity)? What about profanity? Are there any words you just shouldn’t say? Personally, I could easily curse on camera before I could say, “oh my God”; because to use God’s name in vain is breaking one of the Ten Commandments, while cursing is simply a fading taboo of shifting rules set by the expectations of culture. To me, there are plenty far more destructive ways that words can be used that go against the Kingdom of God, like gossip, malicious sarcasm, and belittling.
Here’s where it gets really tricky. If you think it’s wrong to curse in a role or play a character who has premarital sex, how is that so different from playing a character who is a murderer? At least by playing a killer, you’re truly just pretending to play a character who is obviously in the wrong. But by being filmed semi-nude under covers in a bed, you’re sending a subconscious message that sex between two consenting adults doesn’t necessarily have any spiritual concerns attached to it.
So in theory, in 1983, as a born-again Christian, if given the opportunity to have Al Pacino’s lead role in Scarface, would I, should I, could I? For it’s time, the movie Scarface contained more profanity than any other film in history. It was originally rated NC-17 for its violent content. But in the end, (sorry if you haven’t seen the movie but you’ve had 28 years to see it so I feel okay about giving away the ending) all of Scarface’s sins find him out. It’s obvious that his life of violent crime led to his own demise and in the end, it wasn’t worth it. Does that mean that this movie teaches its viewers not to waste their lives in a mob, getting involved with violence and cocaine? In theory, yes. In theory, it has positive, redeeming value because in the end, crime doesn’t pay.
That’s something I’ve observed about Christian culture. It seems most Christians are okay with a character doing obviously un-Christian things if in the end they repent: Unlike the character of Stacy Hamilton, played by Jewish actress Jennifer Jason Leigh in the 1982 movie Fast Times at Ridgemont High, who decides to have an abortion and seemingly goes on to live a completely normal life, never regretting her decision. I contrast that to the song “Red Ragtop” by Tim McGraw, whether the 20 year-old protagonist gets his 18 year-old girlfriend pregnant and together they decide to have an abortion.
However, by the end of the song, though it’s not explicitly stated, the melancholy mood and subtle lyrics of the song itself convey the message “we can’t undo what we’ve done or beat ourselves up over it, but we do regret and it’s definitely a sad thing that happened”. Rightly assuming that Country music fans are mostly Christians (simple demographics), they helped the song rise to the #2 position on the Country charts.
Entertain this thought: Ask yourself privately, as a Christian, whether or not you would play the role of a character in a play, musical, TV show, or movie who would do any of the following things:
-use minor profanity
-use stronger profanity including racial or gender slurs, up to the “f-word”
-use God’s name in vain, whether it’s by saying “oh my God” or “G.D.”
-play a character who has premarital sex and never encounters any real negative consequences
-play a gay character who never actually kisses another actor
-play a gay character who does kiss another person of the same gender
-play a heterosexual character who jokingly kisses a person of the same gender on the lips, which happens quite often on Saturday Night Live
-play a serial killer and rapist, though no explicit violence is ever shown on screen and who never curses or participates in any pre-material sexual relationship
-play a serial killer and rapist, though no explicit violence is ever shown on screen and but does participate in some premarital sex and who does some cursing
-play a serial killer and rapist, though no explicit violence is ever shown on screen and but does participate in some premarital sex and who does some cursing, but at the end accepts Jesus Christ as their Savior and from that point on lives a life in accordance to the teachings of Jesus
How is it any more wrong to play a homosexual actor than it is to play heterosexual actor who has premarital sex? Though both situations are perceived much differently by the general population, when it comes to my understanding of the Bible’s teaching of righteousness, I don’t see how one is any different or worse than the other. The way I understand it, Jesus died for all sin. Sin is sin is sin. No matter what kind it is, it separates us from God and causes every single one of us to need His grace.
Where do you draw the line as a Christian actor? Obviously to be involved in straight-up porno-graphy is out of the question for any sincere Christian. But there are so many millionths of the scale to get to that extreme. On the much slighter end of the scale is a man with his shirt off showing off his six-pack while he rides a horse bareback. Further down the scale is that same man passionately kissing a woman while in a hot tub, both in their swimsuits. Next is the same man and woman acting out a love scene in bed and though they are actually naked, they aren’t acting having sex underneath the blankets which strategically cover up certain parts of their bodies.
I remind myself that outside the culture of conservative Christianity, in reality the rest of the world behaves its own way regardless of our censorship. To imagine a real life group of people who in their everyday lives never cursed or had premarital sex (outside of the conservative Christian world) is to me, simply unbelievable. Taking away the elements of entertainment that are unChristian-like either makes the TV show or movie either A) unrealistic or B) a Christian movie like Facing the Giants.
I also remind myself that the Bible itself is full of violence, premarital sex, rape, and murder. There is homosexuality. There are concubines. There are instances were people cursed (like when Peter denied Christ). The King James Version of the Bible even contains the words “piss” and “ass”. If the entire Bible were made into an epic movie, could born-again Christians play every role?
But some point, acting is no longer simply just acting. It’s doing. So here’s my final thought about all this. In some technical, annoying way, are we as conservative, born-again Christians actually hypocrites for being spectators of popular entertainment?
Imagine this: Instead of the majority of the cast of Friends and Seinfeld being Jewish, instead they were all born-again Christians. Because of their faith-based convictions, none of them were willing to use any profanity or be involved in any situations that involved premarital sex. I know how beloved these two sitcoms are among the majority of Christians I know. But imagine a world where Ross Geller saying “We were on a break!” meant nothing to us.
Two Questions for You about This Today:
A) As much as we Christians love our sitcoms and movies, would they truly exist if we didn’t support them with our viewership because we ourselves wouldn’t be willing to play those roles the same way?
B) Where would you personally draw the line in regards to what you would or would not do for an acting role, hypothetically speaking, if you were an actor?
I sincerely would love to hear feedback from you, the invisible reader, on either or both of these proposed questions, by leaving a comment below. You don’t have to leave your name; you can easily remain anonymous if you wish.
If you’re not a conservative, born-again Christian, still free to answer as well… and please know how aware I am that the content of this entire post probably seems a bit… out there. For all I know, you may find it either laughable or offensive that we believe premarital sex is wrong or that kissing someone’s spouse is both weird and taboo. But what good is a religion that has no backbone or reasonable standards, despite how counter-culture those limitations may be? Thanks for reading despite the culture shock of it.
Find out what it takes to impress a movie snob like myself when it comes to the “boo!” factor.
One of my biggest pet peeves in life is when someone starts telling me about a movie, and in a subconscious effort to be cool or to be a hero, blurts the ending. Usually, that takes away much of the incentive to spend the two hours to watch the movie. But recently, a coworker blabbed the twist ending to Orphan and it actually intrigued me so much that I watched it this past weekend with my wife and my mother-in-law. And though I typically can’t say this about most movies, especially not “scary” ones, I give it an A+. So what makes for a good scary movie, according to me, a self-proclaimed movie guy?
It doesn’t have bad acting. A few weeks ago I tried to watch Fire in the Sky, the 1993 thriller about alien abductions, and couldn’t make it past the first 20 minutes because the acting was simply not believable. It was somehow both too cartoonish and too bland. Like Christian movies and low budget sci-fi movies, scary movies also tend to feature unknown actors who are unknown for a reason. For a scary movie to be good, the acting itself can not be a distraction.
It doesn’t exploit violence and gore. Granted, I don’t mind excessive violence and gore if it’s necessary to the plot. I’m a huge fan of the Saw franchise. But I didn’t like Saw III, Saw V, or Saw 3D individually because I felt the violence and gore itself was over-the-top and mainly there for shock value alone, whereas I felt that with first Saw, Saw II, Saw IV, and saw VI, the violence and gore had a purpose directly related to a meaningful plotline.
It doesn’t contain soft-core porn. The thing that has kept me from seeing Hostel is that I have heard from multiple people that “there is a soft-core porn scene in the beginning of the movie”. A good scary movie doesn’t need obsessive nudity in order to be a good scary movie. (When any kind of movie has excessive nudity and sex scenes, I almost always believe it’s in there as a desperate attempt to make an otherwise drab movie seem interesting.) There was nudity in One Hour Photo, but it was extremely relevant to the plot and had a purpose. I’m not saying I morally approve nudity, but I am saying that when it’s done in good taste, it can at least keep from distracting from the quality of the movie itself, as opposed to most Friday the 13th movies.
It doesn’t contain special effects which I can tell are fake. In Saw 3D there were several death trap scenes where I could totally tell the newly dead bodies where just hollow rubber dummies. That’s how I feel about the new Texas Chainsaw Massacre and the Final Destination series. I am a snob when it comes to special effects of any kind. That means I don’t want to see any blood that looks too watery or any noticeable uses of green screens.
It doesn’t end with all the main characters dying. The movie is scarier if at least one person lived to tell the story. I’m not saying that it has to end well. One of my favorite scary movies is Skeleton Key- no one really dies in it but it doesn’t really end on a happy note either. Yet the creativeness in how they pulled off that combo impressed me. Same thing with One Hour Photo.
It doesn’t end unfinished. If the name of the movie is Freddy Vs. Jason, then either Freddy or Jason better clearly win the fight by the time it ends. I’m fine with a movie that ends while leaving the door open for a sequel. But if that’s the case, I want that movie to be able to stand alone as a film that in of itself actually makes sense and has closure. The first Saw movie does this perfectly.
If a horror/thriller movie passes these six tests, there is a good chance it will be at least a good one. It’s not about how many times you get spooked when something surprises you by jumping out on the screen or a high dead body count. The movie itself has to be legit and in tact as a whole. Otherwise, instead of walking back to your car after the movie as look around the parking lot for any suspicious shadowy creatures, you’re shaking your head at how stupid that movie was instead.
It’s satisfaction we’re looking for; not perfection.
Editor’s note: This post pretty much gives away the ending to the first Rocky movie and the finale episode of Lost. If that matters to you, please don’t read it.
When it comes to movies and TV series, if the ending isn’t satisfying, I typically label the whole thing as “not that great.” Movies like Quarantine and Vantage Point could have been so good, but the 90th minute proved the other 89 to be a waste of time. On the other side of the token, movies like Cast Away and The Social Network could have totally had a lame, pointless, or predictable ending; but instead, the events leading up to the finale were brought together in a way that had me leaving from the theatre thinking, “good job, movie makers” instead of hearing a collective, annoyed gasp from the audience at the ending of another M. Night Shyamalan film that we all tried to give a chance.
Of course a good ending doesn’t always mean they all lived happily ever after, but at least that the characters learned from their experiences and became better people accordingly. Like the first Rocky for example; by the end of the movie we realized we didn’t truly care whether or not he actually won the fight. The point was that Rocky was given the chance to fight someone out of his league, he fought a good fight, and that Adrian was there to support him no matter what happened. It was a perfect ending, even if our expectations were assuming he would win the fight at the end. “Perfect” endings don’t actually have to be perfect; they just have to be worth the ride.
I have come to the realization that one of the reasons I am a movie enthusiast is because watching good movies is a fun way to (metaphorically) download lessons on social situations into my brain and to become more “life experienced” without having to actually live through those experiences myself. Sure, a major part of life is learning from your own mistakes. But most of the time, I prefer to learn from other people’s mistakes- and I don’t care whether or not it’s someone I actually know in real life or a fictional character in a movie. I think it’s such a wonderful bonus that in addition to the character building experiences I already learn from everyday life, I can extract this knowledge from stories shared through the seemingly petty vehicle of entertainment.
To me, no ending will ever be better the finale episode of the TV show Lost, where the characters reunite in the afterlife to reminisce their shared years of life on Earth together, despite the fact that by that point (not the entire six seasons) they had all been dead for decades or even centuries. It was unique and extremely creative in that it superseded the limited perspective of the human lifespan. Despite acknowledging that while what we do here on Earth does indeed matter and yields eternal consequences, it reminds us that one day this life does indeed end. And whether or not we fully understand The Smoke Monster or why Walt was so special or how long Hurley and Ben Linus ended up staying on the island, the point isn’t that we get all our questions answered in detail. And whether or not you’ve ever seen an episode of Lost to understand those bizarre references, the perspective of looking back on the meaning of our lives from an post-life view is pretty interesting; it reminds us who and what truly matters to us.
No matter which side of the parallel between real life and the entertainment world I am on, I am still wired to want the perfect ending. I have to believe that in real life I will live a long and happy life with my family. Simply, I just want a realistic and satisfying ending, with a few pleasant surprises thrown in for good measure, since I know there will be unpleasant surprises disguised as necessary plot lines. A perfect ending isn’t always defined by all the ends being tied together when the credits roll. Instead, it’s knowing there is meaning behind it all- that is satisfaction.
Family Friendly Daddy Blog 