Unpop Culture

I have good news and bad news. The good news is that much of the pushback I received on my critique of the film Redeeming Love is based on statements I didn’t actually make and positions I don’t actually hold. As such, much of the disagreement publicly shared is unfounded. The bad news, of course, is that such a high level of reader misinterpretation happened in the first place. A lot of digital ink has been spilt arguing with rhetorical phantoms. While I am saddened that so many people walked away from my piece unnecessarily confused, I am also glad to clear the air and clarify my intentions. Toward that end, I wish to address several misconceptions. One key factor is the title of the article itself. In the beginning, my working title was Redeeming Love’s Unfortunate Exploitation . By using the word “unfortunate,” I hoped to communicate a sympathetic posture toward the film and its intentions. Of course, the final title is different from my initial suggestion: ‘Redeeming Love’...

If you haven’t watched any of the Pitch Meeting comedy videos by Ryan George , you’re missing out. In each video, George pokes fun at a given movie’s plot holes and logical inconsistencies, framed by an imaginary discussion between a film producer and a screenwriter. (He plays the parts of both individuals, cutting the footage together so that his characters are talking to each other.) The screenwriter pitches a story idea while the producer interjects with various questions and comments. The results are often hilarious. For a stellar example of this setup, you can watch the pitch meeting for Watchmen  in the embedded video at the end of this post. In the spirit of Ryan George’s videos, I have written a pitch meeting for the faith-based film Redeeming Love . As such, the discussion below is an imaginary conversation between a Hip and Edgy Christian Screenwriter (HECS) and a Priggish, Obtuse Producer Crazy about Oscars, Ratings, and Notoriety (POPCORN). Enjoy! ----------------...

Regular visitors to this blog are well aware of a particular thematic drum I keep beating: the sexual exploitation of our entertainers . It is a drum I will continue to beat. From time to time, however, it is helpful to zoom out and take in the larger picture. Now is one of those times. Over the years, I have highlighted dramas like Fifty Shades of Grey , television shows like Game of Thrones , and comedies like  Knocked Up  and  The 40 Year Old Virgin . I have also highlighted the experience of individual actors , including Jennifer Lawrence , Evangeline Lilly , and Margot Robbie . Reading these exposés might lead some to think of me as a pessimistic killjoy with a Pharisaic dedication to condemning anything and everything I can lock my sights on. My point, however, is not to condemn the filmmaking industry outright, nor to condemn all use of sexual themes in entertainment. (In fact, I have defended both on this blog, including here and here .) Nor has my point been ...

After two decades in Hollywood, actress Salma Hayek did an interview with The Orange County Register . She was asked if she realized being a sex symbol was the only way to open doors in the entertainment industry, or if she “found out later and had to accept.” She answered, “I did not know that in advance, but I saw that it was the only way to sneak in.” [1] When she moved from Mexico to Los Angeles back in 1991, the only way for her to “sneak in” was through the use of her body as a bargaining chip. She discovered Latino actresses like her were “typecast as the mistress maid or local prostitute.” Being viewed primarily as a sexual object didn’t just last for a brief stint. It lasted for years. In 1995, Hayek got a big break as a lead actor in Desperado , but this career advancement came at a high cost: having a sex scene sprung on her. Says Hayek , “[The scene] was not in the original script, I have to say. I think it was one of the notes that came after they showed the screen test...

It is inherently problematic to condemn a specific film or television show from the sidelines, without personal experience of what that work of art communicates. When Christians dismissed Darren Aronofsky’s 2014 film Noah , for example, many of them did so on erroneous grounds, not knowing what was actually in the movie . Blind condemnation is dangerous and unhelpful. When it comes to pornographic content, however, we move away from the debatable and ambiguous elements of artistic merit, and toward more solid distinctions between right and wrong. Hypersexualized storytelling methods are an aspect worth criticizing. A Christian can—and should—condemn pornographic material without having to engage each instance on a case-by-case basis. Thus, I am comfortable and confident to condemn pornographic techniques used in any mainstream film, whether I’ve seen that film or not. Such condemnation is not unfair to the work as a whole. That is why I have spoken up about certain films I haven’t ...

Ms. Doucouré: Even though I have grave concerns over your feature-length debut, I am also troubled by the overt hatred you have received since Netflix picked up Cuties for mass distribution. The uncharitable names you’ve been given, the perverted motives imputed to you, and the death threats you have received are wholly inappropriate. They are tantamount to violence against both your humanity and the God who created you with dignity and value. I recently discovered an interview in which you shared from your heart the catalyst for writing and directing Cuties . Several things you said resonated with me: “Our girls see that the more a woman is overly sexualized on social media, the more she’s successful. And the children just imitate what they see trying to achieve the same result without understanding the meaning. And yeah, it’s dangerous.” “…isn’t the objectification of a woman’s body that we often see in our Western culture not another kind of oppression?” “I think all togethe...