The American Spectator : Return to Hollywood

Text Size

Return to Hollywood

By Lisa Fabrizio on 4.28.10 @ 6:06AM

The last thing Tinsel Town deserves is a two-week run.

It’s not often that I write a column in answer to feedback from a previous one, but last week’s piece on Hollywood generated a great deal of criticism. And surprisingly, much of it came from self-professed conservatives; younger Tea Party types it seems, who I hoped would have gotten the point. And that point is, to take America back, we must concentrate, not only on the body politic, but also on the restoration of our culture. We can’t allow Hollywood to shape the views and values of future Americans. John Adams cannot be quoted enough on this: “Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other.”

To set the record straight, I never said that there are no good movies today, or that all movies from the Golden Age of Hollywood were great; I merely posited the theory that most of the movies made then could or would not be made today. Why? Is it because modern viewers would be bored by movies devoid of flashy animated special effects, filthy language and nearly non-stop sex and violence? Would today’s audiences be turned off by witty and well-written dialogue or plots and characters that are reflective of their values and belief in the goodness of America? No, that’s not the reason, and statistics back this up.

Of the 100 top grossing movies of all time adjusted for inflation by Box Office Mojo, 54 were made before 1980. Of the 46 made in the last three decades, 35 were either children’s movies or fantasy/comic book fare. Of the remaining eleven, four of these were comedies, meaning that only seven of America’s 100 top grossing movies were of the brooding, depressing nature that Hollywood insists on shoving down our collective throats today.

So how do they continue to survive this way? Simple: the revenue from DVD sales of the movies people actually like covers the huge salaries and payoffs to those who make the films they believe define their “art.” For every Little Mermaid with its animated cast they produce, there’s that much more to dole out to American patriots like Johnny Depp and Sean Penn. But even the milk from that cash cow is drying up, and the sooner the better.

No, the problem is not with the majority of the movie-going public, it rests solely with the powers that be in Tinseltown. In almost every industry in America, the market determines the success or failure of the product. Not so in the entertainment field apparently, and it’s not hard to figure out why. A culture is defined by its heroes, and Hollywood no longer believes in heroes as once defined by our national ethos. Allow me to once again demonstrate my point via celluloid.

Take the 1938 version of The Adventures of Robin Hood with Errol Flynn in the title role. Are there any among us who foresee a return to the days when Hollywood would portray women who not only desire the charm, good looks and virility of a man like Flynn’s Robin, but…shudder…that they would also yearn for the chivalrous protection afforded by such a catch? And even more unlikely, could a modern screenplay produce a male character who would desire the pure, noble and chaste love of Olivia de Havilland’s Maid Marian?

Now contrast that movie — a delight to the eyes, the ears and the heart — to the dreary 1991 version; the awful, Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, starring the most miscast costume-drama actor of all time, Kevin Costner. What he did to he-man western heroes in Dances with Wolves, he does for the merry men of Sherwood Forest: induce great bouts of somnambulism. Even Roger Ebert called it, “a murky, unfocused, violent and depressing version of the classic story…totally lacking in the joy of living we associate with the character…the most depressing thing about the movie is that children will attend it expecting to have a good time.”

And that’s the thing; except for the aforementioned fantasy movies, there are hardly any good times to be had in today’s multiplexes. Depressing and devoid of any true emotion save guilt and feminist triumphalism; mistaking schmaltz for joy and lust for romantic love; literally reducing male heroes to comic book caricatures; today’s movies just can’t measure up to those which actually reflected American values, because their makers simply don’t share them.

So just say no to Hollywood’s twisted view of America. Instead of plunking down a major chunk of your hard-earned money to sit in a theater and have your ears and your intelligence insulted, buy a nice bottle of wine, nuke some popcorn and romp through Sherwood Forest with the real Robin Hood, and pray for a return to the days when robbing from the rich to pay the poor only existed on the silver screen.

About the Author

Lisa Fabrizio is a columnist who hails from Connecticut (mailbox@lisafab.com).

Letter to the Editor View all comments (148) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Stuart Koehl| 4.28.10 @ 6:50AM

Liza,

If Hollywood had had the special effects available today, it would have used them. Special effects are found throughout all the classic films of the era. You just don't recognize them as special effects because, well, today they just aren't that special. But back then, Dorothy's house being lifted up and spun around by the tornado just knocked their socks off.

Tom| 4.28.10 @ 7:30AM

Stuart,
Special effects should ideally be used to enhance the story not to mask the lack of one. Too often movies try to get by with "Oh my! Look at that!" moments rather than plot and acting. Yes, Dorothy's house being spun around and the flying monkeys were memorable but the story and the acting were still wonderful absent those. Avatar, as an example, if you strip out the "Oh my!" moments is devoid of any real value. It is nothing more than empty visual calories, sweet to watch but leaving no lasting impression.

Stuart Koehl| 4.28.10 @ 8:12AM

That was a problem in classic Hollywood, too. For every Ben Hur (and from a technical perspective, filming the sea battle and the chariot race were as challenging then as anything being done today), there were half a dozen trashy sand-and-sandal epics, B-westerns, cheesy war films, etc.

Lisa also passes over the numerous small films of recent years which have gained substantial audiences and will be remembered as classic.

One thing Lisa also ignores is the proliferation of new media, which has created the whole phenomenon of the independent film. Directors are no longer beholden to studios, but can crank out very professional movies on a shoe-string budget (the very digital effects that Lisa decries also allows for digital editing for pennies which would have cost tens of thousands if done with 35mm film), and be assured of a wide audience and substantial profits through DVD and digital download sales. Digital is democratizing the movies. Soon we will see more films being released in a year (through all outlets) than at the height of the studio system.

Tom| 4.28.10 @ 9:52AM

Stuart,
The question is not whether many of yesterday's films were bad, many were, but whether Hollywood (I use Hollywood and not the movie industry because many of your points regarding alternatives to Hollywood are valid) is making any movies that will be considered classics 50 years from now. Or will they for the most part be forgotten?

Stuart Koehl| 4.28.10 @ 10:13AM

Most certainly. But you yourself forget that most of the films made under the studio system are themselves forgotten today. How many films were made between, say, 1935 and 1965 (the rough boundaries of the studio system)? How many are on your A-list today?

If we look at all the films made since then, you will find just as many classics as in the preceding decades, across a wide range of genres, big films and small films, epics, romantic comedies, fantasies (don't tell Bowman, though), animation and live action--there is as much gold among the dross today as there was sixty years ago--maybe more, proportionally.

And let's not forget how truly awful some of the studio pictures really were.

rapid prototype | 4.28.10 @ 10:44PM

I look forward to the new Russell Crow "Robin Hood". Crowe is without a doubt one of the finest actors of this or any other age of film. Looking for good movies? Look at Russell Crowe's work, including such non-spectaculars as "A Beautiful Mind", "LA Confidential" and "Cinderella Man". "Gladiator" was a magnificent spectacle, much better than the turgid 1960s epic on which it was based, "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire". My favorite Crowe film remains "Master and Commander", which was a character study disguised as an action film, certainly one of the most "manly" films of all time, and the best depiction of life at sea in the age of sail, ever.

Alan Brooks| 4.29.10 @ 12:24AM

"there is as much gold among the dross today as there was sixty years ago--maybe more, proportionally."

That's like saying "I moved from the country and now live in a huge city, but I can find friends among the thousands of bad people."
Proportionate? depends how big you mean.

Stuart Koehl| 4.29.10 @ 8:12AM

It's very simple: Hollywood studios used to churn out hundreds of films every year. Most of them were forgettable (the memory of them will last a lunchtime), and quite a few were just awful--which is why you don't see them aired on TCM or any other outlet. Let's say, of every hundred films made, twenty were wretched, seventy were mediocre, and ten were really good. That's a bell curve.

Today Hollywood makes far fewer films, because films are expensive to make and market, and because movies now compete with television, streaming video and other media outlets. But, of every hundred films made, about twenty are awful, seventy are forgettable, and ten are really good.

That's what proportionate means.

Stuart Koehl| 4.29.10 @ 8:14AM

By the way, Alan, if you lived in a small town, you might know that the bell curve of good and bad people exists there, just as in the big city. The difference is, in a village of 100 people, you'll still find only ten good ones.

Alan Brooks| 4.28.10 @ 4:15PM

Best films are the ones that used no special effects, like Goodfellas.
"think it's funny?
what's so funny about it , Henry?
How am I funny?
Tell me how it's funny...
I'm a clown?
I'm here to make you laugh?...
that's what I'm here for"

Richard Baker| 4.28.10 @ 7:37AM

Stuart:
So where's the ACTING in most of today's films?

Stuart Koehl| 4.28.10 @ 8:13AM

There are some very brilliant actors working today. I'm surprised you ignore them.

Alan Brooks| 4.29.10 @ 12:17AM

Johnny Depp is, um... versatile.

But not much more. Donnie Brasco was my favorite by him. Now, he may have done better films than DB, but why-- with all the films to see-- would anyone bother to explore the Films of Depp anymore than the Films of Sean Penn or Robin Williams?

Stuart Koehl| 4.29.10 @ 4:31PM

So, you did not think much of Edward Scissorhands or Sweeney Todd? Do you have a phobia about sharp objects?

Doug from Indiana| 4.28.10 @ 7:42AM

I'm with you Lisa (pardon me calling you by your Christian name, but I don't know your proper title: Miss or Mrs.). The only movies I watch anymore are the ones on Turner Classic. I may not care for Ted Turner, but I have to thank him for that channel.
I'm also with you that the only good movies today are for kids. The cartoons by Pixtar not only have much better plots and dialogue than everyone else, but the cartoon characters are better actors than 95% of the humans.

Stuart Koehl| 4.28.10 @ 8:16AM

I have a great appreciation for TCM as well, but if you work your way through their playlist, you will see that they generally run fewer than 10% of the films in the MGM library. Why? Because the other 90% are dreck.

Half a century from now, if there is still cable television (or television, for that matter), there will be a station that shows classic movies of the '60s, 70s, 80s, 90s and 00s. And, wow! These will amount to perhaps 10% of all the films released during those five decades.

Because Theodore Sturgeon was right: 90% of everything is crap.

Jeffrey| 4.28.10 @ 2:52PM

Stuart,

Having read through your comments, you seem to be side stepping the central point of the article. Lisa Fabrizio wasn't simply bemoaning the lack of quality movies, but the (going back to high school lit) absence of heart in the protagonists.

A review of Troy by Roger Ebert comes to mind that was very critical of the portrayal of Achilles by Brad Pitt. It wasn't that Pitt was terrible as an actor, but that he muddied the waters of a heroic figure by making him a brooding warrior who seemed reluctant to fight. The old greek heroes were always spoiling for a fight. Conquering monsters kind of defined them. No so this version of Achilles.

In opposition to Fabrizio article though, I don't think that can all be blamed on the Hollywood's clay footed gods. I think the audience wants a muddier characters now and releasing a movie where the hero is purely heroic rather than kind of an anti-hero might be seem as kind of boring these days.

I have always been captivated by the magic of movies & have avidly watched many, many of them in the theater going back to the mid 70's. I still remember my surprise at having to pay the outrageous sum of $3.50 to see the 1st showing of Star Wars. And I went through my period of midnight movie madness in college. Even Rocky Horror was magic to me at one time. Today though, the magic does seem to be fading though. I sorely miss the movies with great dialog and find myself shifting through tons of dreck on Netflix to find films with characters of more depth than cardboard cutouts.

Stuart Koehl| 4.28.10 @ 3:32PM

But again, that is not universally the case, and, moreover, there were plenty of empty, formulaic movies in the studio era, too.

As regards Troy, it was just a bad movie, but the portrayal of Achilles was in some ways closer to Homer than most film adaptations, and no, the ancient Greek heroes were NOT always spoiling for a fight--that's what made them heroes, and not simple barbarians. There is emotional depth to the Illiad--it is a tragedy, and tragedy cannot exist where the protagonists lack all introspection.

As regards anti-heroes, maybe we need to revisit some of the Greek tragedies like Trojan Women, Antigone, Medea, etc.--as the Greeks learned to deal with the complexities arising from the Pelopennesian War, their moral dilemmas became more pronounced, their heroes more multi-dimensional and "muddy". That's why those tragedies endure to this day.

Stuart Koehl| 4.28.10 @ 8:19AM

By the way, I agree we are living through a golden age of animation. But if you think cartoons are "kid movies", you are sadly mistaken. Just as Looney Tunes and Mickey Mouse were not written for children, so todays animation classics are written for adults but are accessible by children. Cartoons written for children are, well, childish.

Also, try to remember that behind all those animated figures there are very talented actors (including a lot I suppose you would dismiss out of hand in live action films) doing the voice work. Which is not easy to do. Try it, sometime.

Stuart Koehl| 4.28.10 @ 2:21PM

By the way, Doug, it's "Pixar", not "Pixtar".

Nick| 4.28.10 @ 8:51AM

Miss Fabrizio,

I was surprised that you didn't mention the upcoming Hollywood remake of "Robin Hood" with Russell Crowe. CGI and tons of fake blood. Oh-boy!

Gee, I can't wait for them to remake "Lord of the Rings."

And remember, Robin Hood did not "rob from the rich, and give to the poor." That's a marxist canard.

Robin Hood was taking the money back from the tax-and-spend liberal government officials (Nottingham Sheriff, Sir Guy of Gisbourne, or Prince John), and giving it back to the taxpayers.

Robin Hood was a tax-cutter!

Stuart Koehl| 4.28.10 @ 9:58AM

The whole Robin Hood legend as it is known to most of us is just so much hooey. By the time of Richard I, Normans and Saxons were largely integrated, even if the nobility still spoke Norman French. Richard was the one who taxed the kingdom within an inch of bankruptcy, expelled the Jews and seized their property to pay for his little adventure in the Middle East, and who then got his sorry ass captured and held for ransom on the way home (requiring more onerous taxes to raise the ransom). Getting home, he promptly set off for France to wage war over his ducal possessions, and died from a crossbow bolt while besieging a castle over an alleged crock of gold.

John, for his part, was an inept piece of crap, who richly deserves his reputation as England's worst king (unless you count Stephen, which nobody does). But he wasn't the one taxing the peasants and driving the country bust.

In fact, no king taxed peasants. Peasants were, of course, bound to the land of their feudal lord, and they paid taxes in kind, both produce and service, to him. He, in turn, owed taxes in the form of money or military service to the king.

The people most pissed about taxes, therefore, were the people who paid them--the nobility. Which is why the barons rebelled against John and forced him to sign Magna Carta. The peasants? They were too busy fornicating while trying not to starve in the winters to worry about politics.

Where does Robin Hood fit into all this? Hardly at all. If he existed, it probably wasn't in the era of King John, but more likely in the period immediately after the Normal Conquest, when the Saxons were being squashed by William the Bastard (don't call him that to his face, though--he conquered England just so he could have a better nickname).

So, Robin Hood did not rob the rich to give to the poor. Neither did he pay taxes. Robin Hood was the medieval equivalent of Jesse James and John Dillinger--a murderous thug whose reputation was burnished by people who did not have to live with his depredations.

However, the best Robin Hood film of all time remains "Robin and Marian", a 1976 Anglo-American collaboration starring Sean Connery as a middle aged Robin Hood newly returned from the Crusades; Audrey Hepburn as a luminous Maid Marian, who, tired of waiting for Robin, has become abbess of a convent; and Robert Shaw as the most menacing Sheriff of Nottingham ever (though still not as good as Alan Rickman's lecherous Sheriff, the only redeeming feature in Costner's otherwise dreadful--and inadvertently funny "Prince of Thieves"). If you haven't seen this hidden gem, by all means rent it and pop it in the DVD player as soon as you can.

Nick| 4.28.10 @ 12:12PM

Mr. Koehl,

I was referring to the Robin Hood of legend, not of history. If he existed at all, as you pointed out.

Russell Crowe is alright, I guess. I don't know about "one of the finest actors of this or any other age of film." To each his own.

But, "Gladiator?"
I can't get over how they continued Gibbons' anti-Christian viewpoint by making Marcus Aurelius good and noble (he persecuted Christians), while Commodus was made the bad guy (having given Christians protection from persecution.)

What else should we expect from secular society?

I've only seen "Robin and Marian" once, a long time ago. It was very good, from what I can remember. I'm going to have to check it out again.

Stuart Koehl| 4.28.10 @ 2:08PM

You apparently missed out on the part where Christians "baptized" Marcus and turned him into one of the "Good Emperors" who, though pagan, "anticipated" Christianity through his personal behavior (and let's face it--in a lot of ways Marcus was a lot more "Christian" than Constantine or several of his Christian successors). Marcus' "Meditations" were quite popular with many of the early Fathers, and the Christian philosopher Boethius leaned heavily on its stoic ethos in his own "Consolations of Philosophy".

The persecution of Christians by Marcus Aurelius was neither systematic nor extreme. Like Trajan and Hadrian, he did not hunt for Christians, nor did he accept anonymous denunciations. Very few Christians came before the magistrates in his reign, though spontaneous anti-Christian pogroms, such as that which occurred in Lyons, were not uncommon--but such cannot be laid at the doors of the Imperial administration any more than spontaneous anti-semitic rioting could be laid at the doors of the Catholic Church.

There was no "official" persecution of Christians as Christians (leaving aside Nero's, which was really about arson) until the reign of Decius in 250. There followed a second brief persecution under Aurelian around 253-55, but then nothing until Diocletian's persecution in 303. By that time, Christianity was so widespread that the largest building Diocletian could see, standing on the steps of his palace in Spoletum, was the Christian church.

By then, Diocletian had learned the lesson, and did not persecute the rank-and-file, but went after the leadership and Church property. Many were arrested, a few were tortured, several died.

Though the lives of the martyrs makes edifying reading, in reality the persecution of Christians from Nero to Constantine probably resulted in no more than several thousand deaths over a period of 250 years. It was the rarity of Christian persecution that made it noteworthy--not its ubiquity.

As for Commodus, I doubt he thought of the Christians one way or the other. He was basically a hedonistic thug. The Severan emperor Elagabalus, a Syrian, apparently religiously omnivorous, favored Christianity among several other religions--but he was a total fruitcake.

Nick| 4.28.10 @ 5:16PM

Mr. Koehl,

"You apparently missed out on the part where Christians "baptized" Marcus [...]."

Yes!
I did. I stand corrected, sir.

I knew I would get a history lesson from you, if I posted that. And I'm glad. I love to learn new things.

I don't remember exactly where I read that Marcus persecuted Christians, I think it was the Encyclopaedia Britannica. I looked up Commodus after watching "Gladiator."

So, I put two and two together, and figured that that was why Ridley Scott and the writers portrayed it the way they did.

The Catholic Encyclopedia's (1911) entry on Marcus stated that persecutions happened during his reign, but, as you explained, he didn't seek out Christians to punish.

Thanks again for the lesson, teach!

Stuart Koehl| 4.28.10 @ 5:38PM

"I don't remember exactly where I read that Marcus persecuted Christians, I think it was the Encyclopaedia Britannica. "

Well, the persecution in Lyons that brought St. Irenaeus to that place as new bishop took place under Marcus' watch, so you could say he's responsible, but in fact (as Irenaeus himself pointed out), the persecution was caused by a combination of plague and economic depression, which are usually enough to start the people looking for scapegoats among the minority groups (a thousand years later, it would have been the Jews).

Given that the separation of religion and state was completely alien to the ancient mindset, bad things were due to the displeasure of the gods, and nothing displeases the gods more than people who don't believe in them and offer sacrifices--which the Christians did not, hence the charge of "atheism" raised against them.

Of course, the Jews did not do these things, either, but the Romans respected antiquity, and the Jews could point out that their God had been in business for more than 1600 years, whereas the Christian God was a common criminal who had been executed for sedition only a century or so earlier.

Nick| 4.28.10 @ 7:12PM

Mr. Koehl,

I am curious.

I don't want to presume that you've read Gibbon's entire 3 volume magnum opus, "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire", but I'm sure you are more than aquainted with it.

Do you agree with his premise?

I have not read any of it, by the way. I am not that well read. I envy your command of history, sir.

Thanks!

Stuart Koehl| 4.28.10 @ 7:23PM

No. I deeply admire Gibbon for the breadth of his historical research and his peerless literary style, but he was off base in attributing the decline and fall of Rome to the rise of Christianity, and his description of the Byzantine Empire is a pernicious caricature that is only now being overturned by a new generation of byzantists.

Rome fell for a lot of reasons, but if anything, Christianity was responsible for the preservation and survival of Roman culture, and, in the East, the durability of the institutions and political structure of the Empire.

Remember, the Byzantines referred to themselves not as Byzantines, or Hellenes, but as Rhomaioi--Romans--and they continued to maintain the Empire for a thousand years after the last emperor in the West. They more than held their own for most of that period against wave after wave of enemies--Goths, Huns, Avars, Slavs, Persians, Muslims, Normans and Turks. Effeminate these guys were not.

You can see my review of Edward Luttwak's "Grand Strategy of the Byzantine Empire" in the archives of the Weekly Standard blog. I'm pretty explicit about what Gibbon got wrong.

Petronius| 4.28.10 @ 12:32PM

Let us not discount the pairing of Patrick Bergen and Jurgen Prochnow. But that one is not a Hollywood film.
Costner should have been cast by Mel Brooks in his farce, Robin Hood Men in Tights. While luvvie Kevin was on location in Britain, he tooled around Bury St. Edmunds in his Ferrari Testarosa of a Saturday afternoon. He made the mistake of stopping in front of the Nutshell, (Englands smallest pub). Some off duty Air Force S.P.Techs from Lakenheath were standing outside having a pint of Green King and spotted 'big star'. The reception Kevin got went as follows; "Hey Robin Hood. We eat your cereal every day! (snickers) " Exit K. C.

Jim Wilson | 4.28.10 @ 2:42PM

Robin Hood was William Wallace, or at the very least the legend was a composite of older stories of mixed with stories of Wallace. The first reference to Robin Hood occurred a few years after the judicial murder of Wallace.

My favorite parallel: John Wallace, the younger brother of William Wallace, was called 'Little John' because he was just past 6' (which was very tall in them thar days) and William was 6'7". The irony of Robin Hood's John Little/Little John carries through.

You may notice in 'Braveheart' that William Wallace throws stones remarkably well. In reality he was a famous archer. Why the change? Probably to avoid making him look like Robin Hood. But then again, he was Robin Hood.

The first placement of Robin Hood in the time of Richard I was in 'Ivanhoe' by Sir Walter Scott; it wasn't part of any old legend that they were contemporaries. Richard the Lionheart had an excellent reputation in Scott's day, unlike today. Incidentally the best depiction of Richard I on film (so far) is in A&E's 'Ivanhoe,' where they show him as moody and capricious, laughing one moment and murderous the next, a great warrior, and a poor-to-middling king.

Stuart Koehl| 4.28.10 @ 3:37PM

The stories are older than that, and possibly evolved out of folk tales revolving around Hereward the Wake, a Saxon rebel against William the Conqueror (d. ca. 1072) who made a stronghold in the fen country around Ely. He was reputed to have been an outlaw under Edward the Confessor, and the arrival of the Normans gave him a patriotic outlet for his larcenous inclinations.

maverick muse| 4.28.10 @ 3:46PM

Robin Hood, Tax-Cutter!
Bravo, on target.
/And of course the upcoming Russell Crowe flick ought to be a great remake.

donserge| 4.28.10 @ 9:03AM

Lisa....your column is spot on! Flynn's 'Robin Hood' is one of the great movies of all time, ranking just behind Casablanca (in my humble opinion). Today's movies make fun of our values and our country. By viewing society in general one can see how much influence they have. The comments you received probably reflect it.

Stuart Koehl| 4.28.10 @ 10:00AM

Come now! Casablanca certainly is in the running for greatest film of all time, but Flynn's Robin Hood? It's not even the best Flynn movie (think Captain Blood and The Sea Hawk). It certainly isn't even close to a much more recent classic, John Houston's magnificent "The Man Who Would Be King" (1975)--which I would stack up against any film from the Golden Age.

donserge| 4.28.10 @ 5:09PM

Words mean things.....my comment said "(in my humble opinion)".

Stuart Koehl| 4.28.10 @ 6:04PM

It's usually just a rhetorical flourish.

P. Smith| 4.28.10 @ 9:39AM

Generally in the United States for a movie to be successful there is a simple formula that always works, it involves a protagonist and then a type of redeemer, a Christ like figure. It is somewhat similar to music in that tension is formed within the note/chord structure and then resolution occurs. The problem with the modern producer/director is that his worldview is so corrupted and empty that it is very difficult for him to understand this very simple concept, which then leads to the vacant vapid movies with little or no resolution seen today. Furthermore, there is a very good chance that the movie is written in such a way that one ends up inadvertently rooting for the protagonist.

Most Americans prefer films with a “happy ending”; this goes back to the Christian ethic which permeates our culture in which there is thought to be a happy ending for most of us in the end (nearly everyone believes they are bound for Heaven). In Europe, or anywhere else in the world for that matter, there is no final peaceful resolution within the dominate culture, and so you see depraved movies that end in death and have no satisfying conclusion. In fact many American movies endings are altered by removing the happy ending to conform to foreign taste. This is where we as a nation are headed as we quickly reject the Christian nature of our value system.

I find it very interesting that when I read a poor movie review within mainstream media (e.g. Rotten Tomatoes) there is a good chance that I may like it. The typical American journalist soul is a hollow and rotten core and he yearns for European type entertainment, because to him a movie with a basic Christian ethic is inexplicable; plus it just ain’t cool, and conformation is one of the most important rules to being modern day liberal.

I’ve always enjoyed James Bowman’s movie reviews here at American Spectator. Reviews that are posted by Ted Baehr’s Movie Guide are especially useful for determining if a movie is appropriate for children.

Jim Wilson | 4.28.10 @ 2:46PM

The best site for determining content is pluggedinonline.com. It covers everything by type, violence, sexual content, and my favorite, other negative elements.

Stuart Koehl| 4.28.10 @ 10:02AM

"Most Americans prefer films with a “happy ending”; this goes back to the Christian ethic which permeates our culture in which there is thought to be a happy ending for most of us in the end (nearly everyone believes they are bound for Heaven). "

Who among us did not find the ending of Kevin Costner's "The Natural" more satisfying than that of the Bernard Malamud novella?

Oh, who am I kidding? Who even read the Bernard Malamud novella?

GB| 4.28.10 @ 11:13AM

Stuart, wasn't "The Natural" a Robert Redford film?

Stuart Koehl| 4.28.10 @ 11:18AM

Oops!

I confused it in my mind with Bull Durham (another great baseball film, despite the fact it united Susan Sarandon with Tim Robbins), and certainly better than Field of Dreams (as the Washington Nationals prove, if you build it, they still won't come).

LaneyB| 4.28.10 @ 12:21PM

How was Kevin Costner associated with "The Natural?" I thought it was Robert Redford.

Stuart Koehl| 4.28.10 @ 10:05AM

"I’ve always enjoyed James Bowman’s movie reviews here at American Spectator. "

Bowman is an anomaly--a film critic who hates films, and only recommends those that must be treated as the entertainment equivalent of brussel sprouts. No mainstream film has any redeeming virtue in his eyes, and fantasy is, in his mind, the refuge of the immature (personally, I think reality is the refuge of those whose minds are too pinched to deal with fantasy).

Now, John Podhoretz is a conservative critic who loves film in a way Bowman never will, does not consider movies to be a didactic medium (how odd that a man who consistently upbraids liberals for making "message" films also criticizes any film that lacks an explicit conservative message), and is willing to take the medium for what it is, not what he would like it to be.

Seek| 4.28.10 @ 10:35AM

Stuart:

I wished I could have penned your words. Give us more. Lisa Fabrizio is an ignorant, rigid culture-war politician, not a genuine critic.

Citizen Jerry| 4.28.10 @ 10:37AM

It took me a minute to scroll down to the bottom. So many posts from those who are all vying to be the smartest person in the room.

As for me, I'll pass on the $10 movie tickets and the $12 concessions. And most of the actors are just plain annoying. If I want a lecture on the joys of liberalism, I can find that free just about anywhere.

I'm with Lisa on this one. Even though some clunkers were produced by historic Hollywood, the classics had panache, a style that today is just Gone With the Wind.

Stuart Koehl| 4.28.10 @ 10:45AM

The reason they are called "classics" is they have been through the winnowing process and withstood the test of time. Ninety percent of all films made back then did not--just as 90% of Greek drama, epic poetry and philosophy did not make it into the canon of Western culture.

Why?

Because they sucked. Most stuff in most times and places sucks. You don't know what sucks and what doesn't until many years have passed.

Get back to me in about half a century, and we'll talk about the classics of 1990s and early 21st century cinema.

In the meanwhile, try to remember--there are no golden ages.

TCM fan| 4.29.10 @ 8:39PM

"Get back to me in about half a century, and we'll talk about the classics of 1990s and early 21st century cinema. "

Agreed. Don't bother watching today's productions because 90% of them suck. Wait for the winnowing out process to occur first and then you'll be rewarded with a fine viewing experience. "Drink no wine before its time."

Stuart Koehl| 4.28.10 @ 10:42AM

If you find actors annoying, then you'll love the coming of all CGI-films. When the voices can be computer generated as well, there will be no need for actors, and they will have to get real jobs.

mrneige| 4.28.10 @ 11:16AM

Blue screen wizardry and talented actors notwithstanding, story trumps all. If it ain't on the page, it ain't on the stage.
PS- Check out the Moonlight Movies channel provided by Roku for fun in the film noir zone.

Hasukawa| 4.28.10 @ 1:19PM

Amen to that! It is amazing how a screen"writer"/Director can even eviscerate a good story. I'm currently reading Ben Bova's "The Winds of Altair," and weep at how it was gutted to become Avatar.

DId the novel even get a mention in the credits? Because if not, methinks Mr. Cameron has some 'splainin' to do.

Stuart Koehl| 4.28.10 @ 2:15PM

Imitation is the sincerest form of science fiction. Certainly "Wings of Altair" is one source for Avatar, but then so is Poul Anderson's "Wings of Avalon", which featured winged Ythrians (aerodynamically and anatomically much more plausible than the big blue people) united with humans to defeat an avaricious Terran Empire. Hmmm.

The there was Harry Harrison's "Deathworld" series, set on the planet Pyrrhus, all the indigenous life forms of which are (a) highly poisonous or carnivorous or both; and (b) empathic, so that they respond to human emotions like fear, hatred and anger.

Basically, Avatar is a pastiche, and not necessarily a good one. Think of it as "The Jazz Singer" of 3-D technology. The story is irrelvant: "Jolson Sings!" and "Blue people fly out of the screen!"

Michelle| 4.28.10 @ 11:22AM

Stuart- you are a self absorbed bore- get a life. Reading your posts make me want to poke my eyes out and I can't imagine what listening to you would be like. Probably worse than going to a movie..nyuks... Agree totally with Lisa- movies in the 30's -40's were ENJOYABLE- can be shared with everyone in the family without bad language, nude/sex scenes, and being brainwashed with the latest liberal cause and anti American/anti Christian themes. I also disagree with the sentiments shared of today's animated films- there is NO comparison in the quality and dialogue of the original Disney classics like Robin Hood, Pinocchio and even the Christmas classic 'Drummer Boy' to those of today.. Watch them when played on Disney classsics and you will all agree- they come across as thoughtful, sincere, heartfelt. Todays animated films are smarmy and TRY to be funny in an effort to appeal to the parents...

LaneyB| 4.28.10 @ 12:27PM

Seems that the 10% of movies that will be hailed as classics are "haimishe," touching themes that drive the lives of everyday souls who yearn for a rule that one's fate is for things to turn out well. Unfortunately, a peek into the minds of Hollywood reveals minds that are empty of aspiration, infused with self-loathing and the self-fulfilling prophecy that all is bleak. Their world view is what has diminished the audience in theaters, all but for the fourteen year-olds who haven't absorbed this soul-crushing emptiness.

Stuart Koehl| 4.28.10 @ 2:15PM

Beware of projection, Michelle.

Louis Jenkins| 4.28.10 @ 11:35AM

I don't watch many films, and have little to add. But yes, I do like the Flynn version of the Hood. Let's try to be realistic here and remember, she has selected only a few of the real classics. And yes there is a building full of tripe out there.

Louis Jenkins| 4.28.10 @ 1:28PM

Oh yeah. Wasn't Flynn a communist?

Stuart Koehl| 4.28.10 @ 2:19PM

Rumor was a Nazi sympathizer. But think of the wonders he did for the Allied war effort: his rape trial happened to coincide with some of the darkest days on Guadalcanal and Tunisia, and our boys would huddle around the radio, waiting breathlessly for the latest salacious details of the case.

He also inspired one of my favorite films, "My Favorite Year", with Peter O'Toole as a soused romantic action star (typecasting, anyone?) who has to be baby-sat by a young associate producer of an early life television show. An alleged incident involving a young girls featured prominently in his life, too.

Nick| 4.28.10 @ 8:24PM

"My Favorite Year", I love that movie. Especially the fight scene.

Stuart Koehl| 4.28.10 @ 10:23PM

I like the dinner with Uncle Morty--who looked and sounded just like my grandfather. So, when Morty asks Alan Swan (O'Toole), "So, that teenage girl. . . did you schtup her?", I bust a gut--that's exactly what my grandfather would have said in that situation.

Gr0w1er| 4.28.10 @ 2:58PM

If one reads Flynn's own autobiography, he considered Fidel Castro, "a close personal friend and drinking buddy.". That said, I still like his films, if not his politics.

Stuart Koehl| 4.28.10 @ 3:39PM

Ernie Hemingway was fond of el Jefe, too-at least until her started interfering with Hemingway's drinking and fishing.

Gr0w1er| 4.28.10 @ 3:57PM

True, true... Alas.

Nick| 4.28.10 @ 8:27PM

Grow1er,

Castro?

I thought Flynn hung out with the Nationalists during the Spanish Civil War?

Or, was he a Liberal Fascist?

Stuart Koehl| 4.29.10 @ 7:10AM

Drunken hedonist, actually.

Tim| 4.28.10 @ 1:23PM

I get that Lisa is "pissdoff" with Hollywood but what exactly is she advocating? A governmental control board deciding which movies get made in what style?
No thanks. I'd rather suffer the Sean Penns of this world.

ejp| 4.28.10 @ 1:59PM

No, there certainly should be no government control board. Rather, those who are disgusted with the cesspool of modern Hollywood and its one-sided agendas infesting all levels of popular entertainment should not be giving them any business and over time force Hollywood to recognize that better business AND better movies will come from remembering how more than half the country feels about the issues in contrast to them.

Sadly, there are some critics nowadays who ought to know better, who try to keep whitewashing modern Hollywood for the sake of currying favor with them. I found myself canceling my subscription to "Christianity Today" when I discovered that their film and art critics were more interested in bashing the Religious Right to maintain their standing with the entertainment elites (even to the point of giving three stars to "Sex And The City" and also praising "Brokeback Mountain" and "Munich" and disregarding the agenda messages underneath, and yet at the same time "Passion Of The Christ" they couldn't wait to throw rocks at)

Stuart Koehl| 4.28.10 @ 2:20PM

If conservatives don't like what is being made, the solution is simple--form your own production companies, raise cash, find good scripts, good directors and good actors, and make good films that will make money.

If you can't do that, then shut the hell up. Nobody makes you go to the movies, you know.

Citizen Jerry| 4.28.10 @ 3:10PM

Stuart, you're filibustering. Give it a rest and don't try this on the Mere Comments site.

Stuart Koehl| 4.28.10 @ 3:41PM

So, you're saying the solution is NOT for conservatives to retake the medium, but to sit in a circle bitching and moaning?

As for Mere Comments, it's degenerated into Aunt Bea's Finishing School for Proper Young Ladies. Nothing interesting happens there anymore, and most of the really good contributers have wandered off into a private mailing list.

Margie| 4.28.10 @ 3:13PM

Got a problem with Christians commenting, Mr. K?

My opinion is, why does a Christian magazine even concern itself with Hollyweird anyway?

"Do not love the world or the things in the world. If any one loves the world, love for the Father is not in him." 1 Jn. 2:15.

Stuart Koehl| 4.28.10 @ 3:42PM

You know that I don't. I do have a problem with people who view the past with rose-colored glasses and who can see nothing good or redeemable about the present. The past was never as good, the present never as bad, as some people make it out to be. But most people have the historical consciousness of a fruit fly, so they never manage to learn this.

Margie| 4.28.10 @ 4:33PM

"But most people have the historical consciousness of a fruit fly, so they never manage to learn this."

Oh well. I guess there's just no hope for the rest of us peons! LOL.
I'm wondering~ do you ever consider it a burden that you are so much better off than most of us, or do you just take it all in stride?

Stuart Koehl| 4.28.10 @ 4:51PM

None at all, I'm afraid. For most people, history began on the day they were born.

Doug Lee| 4.28.10 @ 6:04PM

Amen, Margie! But I would add that Christians MUST concern themselves with Hollyweird, because God really wants to SAVE the world, and that includes both the poor souls who have sold out to Hollywood and the people that they influence. See John 3:17.

Margie| 4.28.10 @ 8:26PM

Mr. Lee,

You're talking about 2 different things here. Taking part in Hollywood trash is something He doesn't want me to do.

Witnessing to them is quite another issue, and one I would welcome, had I the opportunity!

Stuart Koehl| 4.29.10 @ 7:13AM

In order to establish or re-establish Christian culture, Christians have to participate in the culture. Which means writing inherently Christian books, composing inherently Christian music, and producing inherently Christian movies--not that so-called "Christian" dreck like the Left Behind books. One of the basic problems facing attempts to establish a Christian culture in the United States is the predominance of Evangelicalism, a form of Christianity which simply has no tradition of high culture at all--and which is leery of the creative imagination needed to produce it.

Margie| 4.29.10 @ 9:56AM

LOL. "One of the problems facing attempts to establish a Christian culture in the U.S. is the predominance of Evangelicalism."

Wow, such an ignorant swipe at Christians (un-Catholics).

Without evangelical Christians you wouldn't have a United States of America. Without Christ's followers, who live according to the Bible, you wouldn't have any converted Indians or tribes. You wouldn't even have a Catholic Church.

I get it that you're a haughty Catholic who looks down his ever so pointed up nose at us lowly Christians, but you don't seem to have even the slightest enlightened clue!

"Establish a Christian culture." Uh, we've been doing that for thousands of years, but it has nothing to do with making movies and joining the "highly cultured."

Stuart Koehl| 4.29.10 @ 3:26PM

"Wow, such an ignorant swipe at Christians (un-Catholics)."

It's not my observation. If I might quote Evangelical historian Mark Noll, "The problem with the Evangelical mind is there is not much of an Evangelical mind". He wrote a book to that effect ("The Problem of the Evangelical Mind") which is worth a read.

"Without evangelical Christians you wouldn't have a United States of America."

Since Evangelicalism is a movement of the late 19th century, that seems a little off.

"Without Christ's followers, who live according to the Bible, you wouldn't have any converted Indians or tribes."

I see that the Jesuit "Black Robes" labored for naught, in your mind.

"You wouldn't even have a Catholic Church."

That puts the cart before the horse.

"I get it that you're a haughty Catholic who looks down his ever so pointed up nose at us lowly Christians, but you don't seem to have even the slightest enlightened clue!"

I'm a haughty Eastern Catholic who looks down on everybody.

""Establish a Christian culture." Uh, we've been doing that for thousands of years, "

Evangelicalism has been around for thousands of years? So, Augustine was an Evangelical? Gregory of Nyssa was an Evangelical? Michaelangelo, Leonardo, Titian, Rublev and Theophan Grec were all Evangelicals? Romanos the Melodist, Palestrina, Bach, Tchaikovsky, Rimsky-Korsakov--all Evangelicals?

Who knew?

Margie| 4.29.10 @ 8:38PM

You really are in the dark. The disciples of Jesus were the first evangelical Christians. Haven't you read the Bible? Ever hear of Pentecost? Ever hear of the preaching of the Bible? It's what Christians do. It's what the very first Christians did after being born of God at Pentecost.

Snide little creep.

Stuart Koehl| 4.30.10 @ 6:10AM

Your response id disingenuous and evasive. Evangelicalism, as a theological movement, has a specific meaning, and you know it. Your attempts to appropriate the early Church as "proto-Evangelical" has no historical legs on which to stand. For one thing, Evangelicalism as a Protestant phenomenon stands and falls on the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, and of course, the early Church did not adhere to that, not the least because there was not yet a Scriptura to make Sola.

But all that is beside the point. More to the point is your inability to identify any particular form of Evangelical culture, which has to do with a crisis in the Evangelical imagination, which is, as Noll (an Evangelical) pointed out, a "Problem of the Evangelical Mind". Evangelicalism is badly placed to develop or renew a Christian culture because it either rejects the concept of culture outright, or it becomes deeply enmeshed in the existing popular culture.

Margie| 4.30.10 @ 12:42PM

Blah, blah, blah. Boring! You're nothing but a pompous self- aggrandizing man.

I find the Bible more real and wonderful and truthful than anything you have to say!

Jesus, according to the Scripture, was the very "first fruits of those who had fallen asleep." 1 Cor. 15:20.

At Pentecost, the disciples received the Holy Spirit (Acts)~ and were commanded to "preach the gospel to the whole creation." Mk. 16:15.

They were the very first "evangelical" Christians, as that is what real Christians do. It is what I do. Do you? Or are you too wrapped up in your haughtiness to be bothered?

"For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power." 1 Cor. 1:17.

You act like your "eloquent wisdom" is something to be held above my head, and the heads of others!

But do you serve the Lord God?

Stuart Koehl| 4.30.10 @ 1:44PM

"Blah, blah, blah. Boring! You're nothing but a pompous self- aggrandizing man."

No answer is no answer, Marge.

"Jesus, according to the Scripture, was the very "first fruits of those who had fallen asleep." 1 Cor. 15:20."

Undeniably. That passage is incorporated into the Anaphora of St. Basil the Great. And this being Paschatide, throughout our worship, up to the eve of the Ascension, we sing the Paschal Troparion frequently:

Christ is risen from the dead,
Trampling down death by death,
And to those in the tombs,
Bestowing life.

"At Pentecost, the disciples received the Holy Spirit (Acts)~ and were commanded to "preach the gospel to the whole creation." Mk. 16:15."

Such was the commission I received at my baptism, where I also received the Gift of the Holy Spirit through Chrismation, for "All of you who have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ".

"They were the very first "evangelical" Christians, as that is what real Christians do. It is what I do. Do you? Or are you too wrapped up in your haughtiness to be bothered?"

The Evangelion, or Proclamation of the Good News is precisely what Paul said it is, and which we sing today: that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is risen from the dead, granting eternal life to all those who believe in Him. But preaching the Evangelion does not make one an Evangelical. Words and terms have meanings, and you are trying to appropriate the Tradition of the Church to your own preferences, which cannot be squared with the historical reality of the Church.

""For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power." 1 Cor. 1:17."

So Paul said, and with eloquent wisdom, too. And what could have more eloquent wisdom than the prelude to the Gospel according to St. John? Have you read any of the Church Fathers? There is true faith to be found there, together with eloquent wisdom. Why make the two of them mutually exclusive?

"But do you serve the Lord God?"

With all my heart and all my soul and all my mind, every day of my life. We are reminded of this constantly, through the singing of the Antiphon Psalms:

Bless the Lord, O my soul,
And all my being bless his holy Name.

Bless the Lord, O my soul,
And forget not all his benefits.

Praise the Lord, O my soul,
I will praise the Lord all my life,
I will give praise to my God while I live.

Margie| 4.30.10 @ 6:07PM

Dear Sir,
Your Catholic doctrine is only that, doctrine. I will go according to the Bible instead.
I will take my stand on the solid Rock, all other ground is sinking sand!
According to the Bible, I have been born anew of a living hope. "You have been born anew, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding Word of God; for "All flesh is like grass and all its glory like the flower of grass. The grass withers, and the flower falls, but the Word of the Lord abides for ever." That Word is the good news which was preached to you." 1 Pe. 1:23-25.

By Grace I have been saved, not through dogma and false Religion.

"For by Grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God--" Eph. 2:8.

Being good can't save anyone~
"But if it is by Grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise Grace would no longer be Grace." Rms. 11:6.

God's Grace saved me, not Religion! And YOU have NO say in the matter, O man!

"..even when we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by Grace you have been saved)," Eph. 2:5.

And if you truly "served" the Lord God, you wouldn't stomp all over your Sister in Christ and accuse her of not being genuine because I am not a Catholic! YOU will be found wanting~ Take heed!

Stuart Koehl| 4.30.10 @ 10:24PM

"Your Catholic doctrine is only that, doctrine. I will go according to the Bible instead."

But who gave us the Bible, Marge, if not the Church? It's an old conundrum that Protestantism does not manage to answer.

"By Grace I have been saved, not through dogma and false Religion."

Why, thank you, Marge. I love you, too. But of course, all the Apostolic Churches teach that we are saved by grace. As an Eastern Christian, I believe that grace is a gift freely given, and that through the free will with which we are endowed by the Creator in whose image and likeness we are made, to take up the gift, and cooperate with it, so that we may become, as Scripture puts it, "partakers of the divine nature", becoming by grace and adoption what Christ is by nature.

"Being good can't save anyone~
"But if it is by Grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise Grace would no longer be Grace." Rms. 11:6."

And yet, "Faith without works is dead"--it takes both, for, as Paul tells us, even Satan believes. If your faith does not inspire you to works of charity, to chastity, and to new life in Christ, then you do not cooperate with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and your faith is like the seed that falls on rocky soil.

"God's Grace saved me, not Religion! And YOU have NO say in the matter, O man!"

Who said that I did? And are you listening to yourself? You are pitching a fit in a voice two octaves over high C.

"And if you truly "served" the Lord God, you wouldn't stomp all over your Sister in Christ and accuse her of not being genuine because I am not a Catholic! YOU will be found wanting~ Take heed!"

Stomp? How long have you had this persecution complex? Or do you mean that you consider yourself and whatever denomination claims your adherence should be beyond any form of criticism? Certainly not even the Catholic Church (and I think you have a very fuzzy idea of where I fit into it) can make such a claim (just read any newspaper or turn on the television, these days).

All I said--and all you have neglected to rebut--is my claim, shared with a number of prominent Evangelical scholars, that Evangelical Christians have failed to stake out a claim to creating a Christian culture because they have no real interest in culture.

And there is no denying that present day Evangelicalism has only a limited interest in the life of the mind, a kind of reflexive anti-intellectualism combined with an unreflective nostalgia for a non-existent past, which is a contradiction and rejection of the principles on which Evangelicalism was founded. The first Evangelicals were deeply committed to intellectual endeavors and were deeply involved in the shaping of culture. They were numbered among our leading philosophers, scientists and artists. But from the early 20th century onward, Evangelicalism turned its back on that, perhaps as a rejection of the scientific materialism which came to dominate first the sciences, then philosophy, then the arts.

Understandable, perhaps, but it also amounted to an abandonment of the battlefield to the enemy, so no use complaining about how terrible everything is (though one could say the same thing about any time and place, because the world is always going to hell), because Evangelicals are not doing any of the heavy lifting. Sorry, but true.

Meanwhile, before complaining that someone is dumping on you, try to exert the minimal level of effort needed to understand what he is saying.

Also, something about glass houses occurs to me. After all, I never said you believed in a "false religion" nor did I imply that you were not a Christian. You did not extend the same courtesy to me.

In fact, your entire response went a long way to making my point for me. Thanks. I think.

Margie| 5.1.10 @ 1:25PM

Your smarmy attitude continues. Of course. Does your condescension go any lower? Persecution complex? Are you going to now pretend that you don't consider me a "real" Christian? You and your Catholic pals have accused and continue to accuse me of not being genuine and that I cannot be a Christian if I'm not a Catholic.. so obfuscate on! LOL.

If you were a true Christian, you would not be trying to prove me insincere, and indeed, right off the bat you do that, along with your Catholic pals.. because according to FALSE teaching of the CATHOLIC Church I am a reprobate. Your Religion is a LIE.

If this were the 15th century I bet you'd love to burn me at the stake, as your Catholic pals did to William Tyndale for translating the Bible into English out of Latin so that ALL people could read it for themselves. The Catholics, in their same power hungry fashion of today, cannot bear Evangelical Christians~ as you so "lovingly" prove.

So take your pot shots. The power of the Catholic Religion is in itself, it is a power unto itself.

The power of God lives within the individuals who have been saved by His Grace, through Faith in Jesus Christ, received the Holy Spirit and live by Faith. We make up the body of believers who call themselves Christian, which means followers of Christ. We go by the Bible, not the doctrines of men~ which the Bible teaches us to AVOID!

"This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me; in vain do they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men." Mt. 15:8 & 9.

I give you William Tyndale~
~A clergyman hopelessly entrenched in Roman Catholic dogma once taunted Tyndale with the statement, “We are better to be without God’s laws than the Pope’s”. Tyndale was infuriated by such Roman Catholic heresies, and he replied, “I defy the Pope and all his laws. If God spare my life ere many years, I will cause the boy that drives the plow to know more of the scriptures than you!”

I stand with him.

Tyndale was a theologian and scholar who translated the Bible into an early form of Modern English. He was the first person to take advantage of Gutenberg’s movable-type press for the purpose of printing the scriptures in the English language. Besides translating the Bible, Tyndale also held and published views which were considered heretical, first by the Catholic Church, and later by the Church of England which was established by Henry VIII. His Bible translation also included notes and commentary promoting these views. Tyndale's translation was banned by the authorities, and Tyndale himself was burned at the stake in 1536, at the instigation of agents of Henry VIII and the Anglican Church. The Anglicans are Catholic but split from them over the issue of Divorce.

http://www.greatsite.com/timel.....ndale.html

Stuart Koehl| 5.1.10 @ 1:59PM

"You and your Catholic pals have accused and continue to accuse me of not being genuine and that I cannot be a Christian if I'm not a Catholic.. so obfuscate on! LOL."

You'll have to point to where I said that. I'll concede that even paranoids have enemies, but I am not one of yours.

"If you were a true Christian, you would not be trying to prove me insincere, and indeed, right off the bat you do that, along with your Catholic pals.. because according to FALSE teaching of the CATHOLIC Church I am a reprobate. Your Religion is a LIE."

Very ecumenical of you. Of course, as a Greek Catholic, I have far more in common with the Eastern Orthodox--most Roman Catholics don't even think I'm a Catholic, but while I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome, the doctrine and theology of my Church is not that of the Roman Church.

"We go by the Bible, not the doctrines of men~ which the Bible teaches us to AVOID!"

It would probably be fruitless to point out that what you have expressed is in fact a "doctrine of man".

"“I defy the Pope and all his laws. If God spare my life ere many years, I will cause the boy that drives the plow to know more of the scriptures than you!”"

More power to Tyndale. His translation of Scripture not only provided the backbone of the magnificent King James Bible, but also the Douay-Rheims Bible, the first authorized English translation for Catholics.

For myself and for my Church, we have always read Scripture in the vernacular. The Bible was written in Greek (Who'd have thought it, right?)--even the Old Testament used by the Apostles was the Greek Septuagint (LXX), and the people of the Eastern Roman Empire could read it in the original (puts them one up on you, I imagine). When the Slavs were converted in the 9th-10th centuries, they received the Scriptures translated into their own language (Slavonic). When Arabic became the the common tongue of the Middle East after the Muslim conquest, the Christians of the region translated Scripture into Arabic. And when the Russians began converting the native tribes of Siberia, and eventually the Aleuts of Alaska, they translated Scripture into the languges and dialects of each tribe. To my Church, every language is appropriate for Scripture, and everybody can and does read it. Our liturgy is nothing more than an assemblage of Scriptural quotations.

"The Anglicans are Catholic but split from them over the issue of Divorce."

They'd certainly like to think so, but, alas! It is not so. Henry might have started out trying to be Catholic without the Pope, but by the end of his son's reign, the Reformation had the upper hand in England, and by the end of the Elizabethan settlement, Anglicanism was firmly Protestant.

But, I digress. What, precisely, does this have to do with the price of piroghi?

Margie| 5.1.10 @ 10:13PM

You admit, and with no pangs of conscience~ "I'm a haughty Eastern Catholic who looks down on everybody."

Well, Mr. Kohel,

This is where you come from in all of your responses to me. And if you respond towards me like that, then how must you be towards Jesus?

There is no talking to you because you have no care for the Truth. You value your pride and arrogance more than Jesus.

And your vain Religion more than God.

I speak in Scriptures, you speak in Doctrine. Here are some that would apply to your modus operandi, of which you may keep all to your little old self, but at what price?

"Thou dost deliver a humble people, but thy eyes are upon the haughty to bring them down." 2 Sam.22:28.

"Him who slanders his neighbor secretly I will destroy. The man of haughty looks and arrogant heart I will not endure." Ps. 101:5.

"For though the LORD is high, He regards the lowly; but the haughty He knows from afar." Ps. 138:6.

"Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall." Pro. 16:18.

"Before destruction a man's heart is haughty, but humility goes before honor." Pro. 18:12.

"Haughty eyes and a proud heart, the lamp of the wicked, are sin." Pro. 21:4.

"Scoffer" is the name of the proud, haughty man who acts with arrogant pride." Pro. 21:24.

"When the Lord has finished all his work on Mount Zion and on Jerusalem he will punish the arrogant boasting of the king of Assyria and his haughty pride." Is. 10:12.

"On that day you shall not be put to shame because of the deeds by which you have rebelled against Me; for then I will remove from your midst your proudly exultant ones, and you shall no longer be haughty in My holy mountain." Zeph. 3:11.

"..slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God's decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them." Rms. 1:29-32.

"Live in harmony with one another; do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly; never be conceited." Rms. 12:16.

"By this it may be seen who are the children of God, and who are the children of the Devil: whoever does not do right is not of God, nor he who does not love his brother." 1 Jn. 3:10.

"If any one says, "I love God," and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen. And this commandment we have from him, that he who loves God should love his brother also." 1 Jo. 4:20 & 21.

God bless you, sir.

Stuart Koehl| 5.2.10 @ 7:13AM

"You admit, and with no pangs of conscience~ "I'm a haughty Eastern Catholic who looks down on everybody.""

I see Marge has no sarcasm button in her brain.

"This is where you come from in all of your responses to me. And if you respond towards me like that, then how must you be towards Jesus?"

Point not to the mote in thy neighbor's eye, Marge. Especially not after bearing false witness against him, both by making false accusations against his faith, and then by accusing him of saying things he never said.

For the record, I never said you were not a Christian. For the record, the Catholic Church believes not only that you are a Christian, but that you are mystically united to the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church through your baptism.

Your total inability to engage in a meaningful discussion or put together a coherent, rational argument in support of your position does prove Mark Noll's point in spades. Once upon a time, Evangelicals would have been eager to engage in intellectual exchange in defense of the Evangelical world view. Now, not only do they avoid it, they are no longer capable of it, and as a result, there isn't much of an Evangelical worldview to defend, is there.

Instead of squealing like a stuck pig about how big bad me is picking on poor defenseless you, you might have begun by defining in some detail what you consider "Evangelical culture" to be. But you prefer to dodge the question by going down the rathole of anti-Catholicism.

Pathetic demonstration on your part.

Stuart Koehl| 5.2.10 @ 9:53AM

And, to bring us back on topic (Marge!), I will refer to a number of observations by Mark Noll regarding Evangelical engagement with culture:

--There is not one significant Evangelical periodical devoted to culture, along the lines of the Catholic "First Things" (or even "Commonweal") or the Jewish "Commentary".

--There are no Evangelical-sponsored research universities.

--There are no Evangelical-sponsored schools of the fine arts or performing arts.

--There is not much in the way of first-rate Evangelical fiction and literature (who is the Evangelical C.S. Lewis, J.R.R. Tolkien, G.K. Chesterton, Anthony Burgess, Walker Percy, Evelyn Waugh or Flannery O'Connor?

--Where are the Evangelical historians to match Lord Acton, John Julian Norwich, Christopher Dawson, Aiden Nichols, Paul Johnson, or John Lukacs?

Where are the Evangelical political scientists like Russell Kirk, Michael Novak or William F. Buckley?

Noll's point is simple: Evangelicals have no influence over culture because they have turned their backs on it and are AWOL from the fight to reestablish Christian culture in the United States.

Worse still, he insists they have rejected Christ's commandment to love God with the fullness of their minds.

Margie| 5.2.10 @ 7:10PM

I see. So after bashing me for pointing out to you that you seem to have an issue with evangelical Christians and accusing me of being insincere, you claim that I am the one doing this to you, and then you go on to bash evangelicals again, and again claim that they aren't Christians~ that they reject Christ~ because they aren't worldly enough.

Round and round you go in your arrogance.

You should read the Bible. It is the standard by which we are all to be judged, and it isn't going to be on worldly things.

You are so far from reality that I pity you.

Stuart Koehl| 5.2.10 @ 8:24PM

"I see. So after bashing me for pointing out to you that you seem to have an issue with evangelical Christians and accusing me of being insincere, you claim that I am the one doing this to you, and then you go on to bash evangelicals again, and again claim that they aren't Christians~ that they reject Christ~ because they aren't worldly enough."

Reading comprehension is not your strong point, is it? Look again at what I said: I am doing nothing except citing what one of the most respected Evagelical scholars in the United States has written. If you have an argument, you must take it up with Mark Noll. And even Noll did not say that Evangelicals reject Christ, only that they ignore His commandment to use their intellect in the service of God. As regards worldliness, Christ also instructed His followers to be "innocent as children and as cunning as serpents". To deliberately be one while shunning the other is not to do Christ's bidding. Moreover, St. Paul himself was worldly in the extreme. He knew the Hellenistic culture in which he had to preach the word, and he did so not by rejecting that culture, but by converting it and bending it to his own purposes. Paul knew and understood Greek rhetoric very well--witness his sermon to the Aeropagites of Athens in the Acts of the Apostles. He uses every trick in the book, and his constant recourse to athletic, philosophical and theatrical metaphors not only shows his familiarity with those aspects of Greek culture, but is also decidedly un-Jewish. And yet, when speaking to the Jews, Paul turns his back on Greek rhetoric and adopts Jewish forms and imagery. As he himself says, "Thus I have made myself all things for all people, that all might be one in Christ".

But, as for your sincerity, I never questioned that, though I did point out your continual evasion of my questions (which you just did again). So I am left to choose between considering you insincere and considering you stupid.

And I have decided to be charitable.

Margie| 5.2.10 @ 8:45PM

Well golleee thanks.

The Bible isn't your strong point, but false doctrine sure is.

I'll be charitable and between saying you are just plain ignorant and hard hearted, well, I'll be "charitable."

You obviously remain haughty.

Stuart Koehl| 5.2.10 @ 9:20PM

Well, if I have been led to the sin of pride, I'll have to lay the blame at your feet. Debating with you instills an irresistible feeling of superiority. I have more rational and challenging discussions with my cats. If people have a tendency to believe that Christians are ignorant buffoons, the reason might be staring back at you from the mirror.

Bye.

Margie| 5.2.10 @ 10:50PM

There IS no debating with you.
Toodles.
But I will let you have it so to speak, whenever again in your haughty arrogance decide to berate evangelical Christians again.

Stuart Koehl| 5.2.10 @ 11:03PM

And I thought you wanted to defend Evangelicalism. Oh, well.

Margie| 5.3.10 @ 12:08PM

You said "Bye." Were you not ending the conversation? Twist and turn some more, huh? You seem to have a corner on the sarcastic, haughty and arrogant markets~ Do you honestly think that it will somehow save you?
I refer you back to the Bible verses about haughty.

Oh and by the way~
Baptism does NOT equal Salvation. You really should read the Bible instead of the gobbilty goop you take your stand on.
"Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." Jn. 3:5.

Have you ever heard of speaking in Scripture? Why do you seem to value man's word above God's?

You don't even know that every genuine Christian who is born of God's Spirit IS supposed to be evangelical, since the Jesus commands us to preach the gospel?

It would make sense then that you have an issue with evangelical Christians, if you deny the issue of Salvation, and falsely try and say that Baptism is the same thing as being born of the Spirit. It's because it's against your own doctrine. The doctrine of man and not God.

"Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God." Jn. 3:3.

Oh, well.

Stuart Koehl| 5.3.10 @ 5:50PM

"Baptism does NOT equal Salvation. You really should read the Bible instead of the gobbilty goop you take your stand on."

Point to where I said it did--or is this just another lie or distortion on your part.

"It would make sense then that you have an issue with evangelical Christians, if you deny the issue of Salvation, and falsely try and say that Baptism is the same thing as being born of the Spirit. It's because it's against your own doctrine. The doctrine of man and not God."

We're just doing what the Church was doing in the time of the Apostles. When the Apostles in Jerusalem hears that there were many among the Samarians who had received baptism, they knew this was not enough, so they sent Peter and John among them to lay on hands and convey the gift of the Holy Spirit.

And we do the same: for us, Christian initiation consists of three distinct Mysteries or Sacraments, which were established by Christ himself:

First, baptism by immersion into water, as was done to Christ in the River Jordan, by which the old man dies with Christ and the new man rises with Him.

Second, chrismation with fragrant oil of the same type as that used to anoint Christ, first in Bethany before his entry to Jerusalem, and then again, by the Myrrh-Bearing Women at his tomb; through this and the laying on of hands in imitation of the Apostles Peter and John, we receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Finally, we seal our membership in the Body of Christ by receiving his Body and Blood in the Eucharist.

This is exactly what the Church of the First Century did, and we do not have the liberty, as you do, of making up our own rules as we go along by our own idiosyncratic reading of Scripture.

But thanks for playing along. Pick up your consolation prize at the door.

Margie| 5.3.10 @ 9:33PM

What a phony! If anyone is a blatant liar it is you. You make up your own doctrine which isn't even Biblical and claim it's of God!

And some of you don't even agree on each other's doctrine. What a joke.

As I said, I will go according to the Scripture, which nowhere includes your rituals.
There are no "initiations", "Mysteries" or "Sacrements"~ they aren't in there! This is FALSE Religion. There is no such thing as "Chrismation." IT IS NOT IN THE BIBLE!

There is NO SUCH THING as the EUCHARIST~ it is NOT in the Bible!

Just WHO is the liar and WHO misrepresents God?

YOU are the one making up your own rules!

The Bible says the way to come to Christ and it is CLEAR~ none of this NONSENSE is required by God!

I quote Scripture~ YOU quote MADE up doctrine NOT asked rituals created by man.

How does Jesus say we should come to Him?

But what does it say? The word is near you, on your lips and in your heart (that is, the word of faith which we preach); because, if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For man believes with his heart and so is justified, and he confesses with his lips and so is saved. The scripture says, "No one who believes in him will be put to shame." For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all and bestows his riches upon all who call upon Him. For, "every one who calls upon the Name of the Lord will be saved." Rms 10:8-13.

Ha! You call me a liar? Then you call the God of the Bible a liar! You cannot put me to shame with your words. You will be put to shame for lying about how God requires ALL to come to Him, and it isn't by works, rituals or phony sacrifices. It's by His Grace, through faith, and simply ASKING Him to save us, as the above Scripture SAYS. Where is the ritual in that? God doesn't make it hard~ and YOU ought not to either!

"For by Grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God--" Eph. 2:8.

And WHO can come to Him and be saved? ALL can.
"Jesus said to him, "I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life; no one comes to the Father, but by Me." Jn. 14:6.

And directly through Him, He is the Mediator~ NOT any MAN.

"For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." 1 Tim. 2:5.

Don't YOU lie and say I cannot use these Scriptures to prove the TRUTH about coming to Christ!

"All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.." 1 Tim. 3:16.

Again~ YOU are the phony, condescending denier of God's Way, not me!

"There are six things which the LORD hates, seven which are an abomination to Him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and a man who sows discord among brothers." Pro. 6:15-19.

Get right with God, according to His way, according to the Scriptures, and not according to FALSE DOCTRINE!

Stuart Koehl| 5.4.10 @ 6:55AM

Name calling, denunciations by bald assertion, ahistorical argumentation and excessive use of the cap lock indicate that you have nothing left in your intellectual argumentarium, except recycled manure from composted Jack Chick tracts. You are such a stupid woman that the inconsistencies and incongruities of your own arguments seem not to occur to you. You are a liar, and a bigot, and will have much for which to answer before the judgment seat of Christ. Let us hope you have the ability to make a good defense.

Margie| 5.4.10 @ 12:30PM

So you call Scripture recycled manure? You are an anti-Christian bigot yourself, and a most hateful one.

You worship the doctrine of men and not God. How STUPID is that?

The judgement seat of Christ, yes we will see who stands.

Thankfully He will judge me, and not YOU! Caps and all!

Stuart Koehl| 5.4.10 @ 6:33PM

Jack Chick wrote Scripture? Who knew?

Margie| 5.5.10 @ 11:26AM

What I wrote was Scripture, with the exact address of same. You are mocking it. You are not interested in the truth, but only in your false doctrine. All the verses on haughty perfectly fit you. Mock on! That's obviously your last refuge, and all you are able to do.

Margie| 5.4.10 @ 5:12PM

You Catholics use the BIGOT card like the Left uses the RACE card.

Stuart Koehl| 5.4.10 @ 6:35PM

Aside from being stupid, you're a whiner. If they needed a cover for a new edition of "The Problem of the Evangelical Mind", your picture would fit the bill.

Margie| 5.5.10 @ 11:21AM

The stupid man is one who cares not for Biblical truth, and lashes out at others who call him on it. Typical Liberal anti-Christian, with the insulting of my intelligence. You make yourself look good in the eyes of your haughty Catholic friends, but not in God's eyes!

Stuart Koehl| 5.5.10 @ 4:31PM

Thanks for the belly laugh of the day. If I am what constitutes a "liberal anti-Christian", then I can only conclude you have no idea what those words mean. After all, from what I can tell of your replies, you are merely a theological sock puppet.

Margie| 5.5.10 @ 8:18PM

Good old Stuart Koehl ends the way he began~ disparaging evangelical Christians. We get it already. You can't bear them.
Stuart Koehl is stuck on haughty.
That's all he has. He dismissed every Biblical reference that I gave, and wished not to discuss a single one. Everything I said was the truth in refuting his false unBiblical doctrine. But instead of dealing with them, like a typical Liberal he resorts to insulting the intelligence of the human being that presents them, proving a desire to cling to un-Biblical doctrine, rather than the Bible.
Catholicism is NOT Biblical.
Mock and insult on~ I won't hear you, but Jesus will.
He waits graciously for you to humble yourself and come to Him His way. And that is found in the Bible.
"Jesus said to him, "I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life; no one comes to the Father, but by Me." Jn. 14:6.

"But to all who received Him, who believed in His Name, He gave power to become children of God; who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God." Jn 1:12 & 13.

Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicode'mus said to him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?" Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." John 3:3-5.

"All that the Father gives Me will come to Me; and him who comes to Me I will not cast out. Jn. 6:37.

"..because, if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For man believes with his heart and so is justified, and he confesses with his lips and so is saved. The scripture says, "No one who believes in him will be put to shame." Rms. 10:9-11.

"Come now, let us reason together, says the LORD: though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool." Is. 1:18.

I present these Scriptures for your benefit. Even though you despise me, I wish you well. That is, I hope you come to Jesus, His way.

Kenneth E. MacAlister Jr.| 4.28.10 @ 3:21PM

Mr. Koehl, were you born an opinionated, pompous gasbag or did you work hard to achieve your level of long winded pomposity? Just curious. Have a nice day!

Stuart Koehl| 4.28.10 @ 3:43PM

It is, of course, a combination of natural talent assiduously developed with hard work. As the joke goes, "How do you get to Carnegie Hall?" "Practice, practice, practice".

cuban pete| 4.28.10 @ 5:04PM

Stuart:
I'm 64 years old and began watching the "classics" of the 30's & 4o's when I was about nine years old. You are exactly right-some wear well others do not. I have enjoyed immensely your comments on the Romans and the English monarchy. Captain Blood is better than Robin Hood although Olivia was my very first love, followed by her sister and Dinah Shore.
"Get me Geisler" a book about the famous celebrity attorney had a great telling of Mr. Flynn's statutory rape trial.
One small quibble- I thought the Carnegie Hall answer was " Practice, man, Practice.
In any event you have produced some great insights today.

Richard Baker| 4.28.10 @ 2:34PM

Stuart:
Name the Brilliants.

Stuart Koehl| 4.28.10 @ 3:46PM

Joey Haufle, J. Finnegan, Ryan Carney and Sean Behan.

Jeff Perren | 4.28.10 @ 5:36PM

"So just say no to Hollywood's twisted view of America. Instead of plunking down a major chunk of your hard-earned money to sit in a theater and have your ears and your intelligence insulted, buy a nice bottle of wine, nuke some popcorn and romp through Sherwood Forest with the real Robin Hood, and pray for a return to the days when robbing from the rich to pay the poor only existed on the silver screen."

Bravo to the entire piece, but I had to quote the end only since re-quoting the full article would be silly.

You've hit it exactly right here.

Progressives have ruined not only our political philosophy - presenting false alternatives at every juncture - but the whole of culture: media, academy, literature, theater, film, et al.

The concrete details of American culture may never return, nor need they. Some of them were, in fact, bad it should go without saying. But we would definitely benefit from a Renaissance of the spirit of individualism, independence, can-do competence, and the like. And, this time, the real thing, please not the faux O-style that is nothing more than diluted, warmed over fascism.

Stuart Koehl| 4.28.10 @ 6:09PM

I will concede that nobody wear those tights like Errol Flynn in his prime. On the other hand, it always annoyed me that Basil Rathbone, an extremely skillful fencer, always had to lose to Flynn, who was not.

"You've come to Nottingham once too often, my friend".

"When I leave this time, I won't have any cause to return".

Hokey as all get-go, but utterly irresistible. Almost as good in fact, as "Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die".

Doug Lee | 4.28.10 @ 5:57PM

Could not agree more with you, Lisa. I'm 45, and have seen a lot of the Golden Years movies and a lot of the current junk. I actually watched the original Robin Hood with my two oldest kids (7 and 5) a few months ago, free on Netflix. THEY LOVED IT, and I did too. It also reflects on the value that Americans put on liberty, consciously I think, with the opening scenes where people were being terrorized by their own government. I could go on, but you get the point.

Nowadays, even the latest Superman movie has been watered down with the reworked catchphrase "truth, justice, and all that stuff" instead of the original "and the American way!" I showed the very first b&w Superman episode to my 7 year old son recently, and again, he loved it. I can't begin to tell you how very, very fulfilling it is to watch that one episode -- full of love of family, unerring commitment to hard work, respect for one another, and the American way.

BTW, nowadays, I check to see how many awards a movie has. I may watch it if it has one or two awards, depending on how desperate I am, but the ones that have several awards showing on the cover get an automatic pass. It's a very useful tool -- basically, Liberals shower the most Liberal movies with the most awards, so you can easily tell which ones to avoid!

Stuart Koehl| 4.28.10 @ 6:10PM

This would be the liberty-loving American people who had just elected Franklin D. Roosevelt for the second time and who would proceed to give him two more at bats?

Jeannine| 4.28.10 @ 6:16PM

Stuart Koehl,
I immensely enjoyed your postings for this article probably because I agree w/most of what you wrote. I like to think that you also watch & enjoy some foreign flicks. If not try some Korean, like the Vengeance Trilogy. Or from Poland-- the Decalogue. Not typical Hollywood classics but definitely well-made.

Stuart Koehl| 4.28.10 @ 6:45PM

I haven't seen much Korean cinema, but I love Japanese movies and have a pretty extensive collection. There are also a surprising number of very good Russian films, some dating back to the Soviet era, which shows not everything they made was a

Stuart Koehl| 4.28.10 @ 6:47PM

Stupid submit button!

There are also a surprising number of very good Russian films, some dating back to the Soviet era, which shows not everything they made was a "boy meets tractor" story (though some of those are a hoot).

My wife and my daughter are both Slavic studies types, so we get our fair share of Polish, Czech and even the odd Hungarian film (my wife also speaks Hungarian) from time to time.

Janis| 4.28.10 @ 11:10PM

TCM is about the only channel on our tv. My husband and I have a list of actors we love. Kay Francis, Carey Grant, Una Merkel...etc.

If we do watch modern movies they are generally Pixar movies it seems.

We have taught our 11 year old son to appreciate the classics, which most kids his age can not do.

Also most of Hollywood back then loved their country.

Tyler S.| 4.29.10 @ 1:56AM

I have to say, I found most of the movies the author discussed to be ... well ... awful. All taste is subjective though, so I guess power to you, good luck reawakening bad films, you have my sympathy, but not my support. (PS, do not take my dislike of the Adventures of Robin Hood to in any way be an endorsement of that Cosner pile, though I do like dances with wolves a lot).

frankye| 4.29.10 @ 4:03AM

All of you still seem to be missing the point. This Fabrizio woman is pissed America's movies largely express America's values, which are more liberal than her own. She's upset that virginal Maid Marian isn't the modern ideal of femininity. And that romanticizing the antebellum south and demonizing the Union army is socially unacceptable in the modern world. The only way most people can enjoy Gone With the Wind today is by focusing on Rhett's "Frankly my dear" and ignoring Ashey's wistful reminiscence of "the soft sound of the darkies lowing in the fields." The fact is, modern movie buffs appreciate GWTW's charms, but would be appalled if similar attitudes were approvingly expressed in a modern movie. Similarly, every American with a primary school level of education knows that the story of the West, which is still playing out today, is not one of rugged manliness and righteous whiteness, but one of conquest, violence and racism. That makes it hard to depict the Marlboro Man as an unambiguous hero. And frankly, Fabrizio must not have seen films like The Searchers, Fort Apache, and Touch of Evil -- all great films from her preferred eras of movie-making that share much with the modern, grownup understanding of America's western expansion. It's the feminism, anti-racism, and more honest depiction of the complicated past that irks Fabrizio about modern American films. Not the CGI and animation. She just thinks kid's movies and special effects blockbusters are made in service of a nefarious liberal scheme. The point of both her posts on the subject is to rail against a film industry that makes a bunch of money off kids and simpletons who pay 20 bucks to watch CGI monsters and explosions in 3D, and then turns around and uses that money to make artier, grittier films that are insufficiently right-wing and like, so depressing. Fabrizio thinks it's bad form for Hollywood to use its profits to make movies she's not interested in. She's also saying that it's bad business. To her mind, film revenues are down because the film industry isn't giving people what they want--movies with the racist heroes and virginal heroines of yore. In the same vein, I guess she thinks the music industry wouldn't be in such steep decline if more artists sounded like Alexander's Rag Time Band.

JP| 4.29.10 @ 9:10AM

Frankye,
It sounds like you are mad that Fabrizio doesn't agree with your hackneyed view of history. If one wants the truth, niether version is very accurate; both tend to view American History with a filtered lens. Your view is one of cynicism and ideology posing as critical analyis. You are more worried about contents than screenwriting, style, acting, or direction.

On famous movie shot on the eve of the Second World War -How Green Was My Valley - depicted the decay of a late 19th Century Welsh mining community. No one in Wales or the UK took the movie's romanticism to be historically accurate. But John Ford wasn't after pure history as he was feeling and drama. The bucolic Welsh countryside and the people who lived there were his subjects. And people in the 1930s were grounded well enough in reality (there were no CGIs, Gameboys, or home entertainment centers to create a false reality) to know that this wasn't reality but an ideal.

Yet, today's sophisticated liberals movie directors and producers are the ones who demand we treat thier depictions of past events as "what really happened".

Richard Baker| 4.29.10 @ 12:31PM

Stuart:
Who? Must be in the art film category.

Stuart Koehl| 4.29.10 @ 3:27PM

It's a very obscure rock band.

Richard Baker| 4.29.10 @ 6:12PM

Stuart:
Obscurity comes with lack of talent.

Stuart Koehl| 4.30.10 @ 6:12AM

Because your inquiry was out of sequence, it took me a while to figure out what you meant. In the meanwhile, I simply answered literally by providing the names of "The Brilliants".

John II| 4.29.10 @ 7:45PM

There's probably not much left to say, but I can't help jumping in after scrolling through all the preceding responses. Stuart's main point--which I take to be the Sturgeon observation that ninety percent of everything is crap--is well taken, but I have to draw the line at the astonishing thought that Russell Crowe is a good actor. He has an engaging screen presence, but most of the effects of his performances are achieved by competent direction and judicious camera work.

Most current movies are rather too "settled," I think, both in form and in substance. With movies, as with books, the older stuff is really the younger stuff. When I teach ancient Greek and Latin literature, for example, I'm teaching something that, in a quite real sense, is much younger than a James Joyce story or a Thornton Wilder play. Of course, Homer and Virgil are infinitely more influential, and the influence goes in only one direction, but the ancient poets are also the fresher poets: clearer images, sharper themes, less self-conscious nuances, more exuberant characterizations--in short, the qualities we ordinarily associate with the young.

And so with movies, I reckon. My own children (ages 20 to 32), who are perhaps unusually familiar with older flicks as well as more recent fare, have brought this notion home to me. One of my sons, for example (he is a motion picture CGI artist, so his remark struck me with particular force), told me that, in a recent movie we had seen together, style seems to trump sense, as if today's moviemakers just don't by and large expect their audiences to have very elastic attention spans. His comment seemed to me obviously to fit such recent remakes as "Alexander" and "300" and "Day the Earth Stood Still" and "Clash of the Titans"--but also "Manchurian Candidate" and "Gladiator" (no offense, Stuart) and "3:10 to Yuma." Compared with their predecessors, they seem so . . . settled, and smug, and insistent, and brittle, while jerking the viewer from scene to scene with dazzling visual effects. The older (that is, younger) flicks demand more attention, allow more space for the imagination to soar, and thus seem to me more worthy.

My vote's with Lisa.

sports | 5.5.10 @ 2:59AM

Instead of families boating, parasailing and fishing, workers on cleanup crews will probably be http://www.sportdaren.com renting her rooms.

car | 5.5.10 @ 3:00AM

Dana Powell expects at least some lost business at the Paradise Inn in Pensacola Beach, Fla., and could http://www.cargprs.com see a different type of guest altogether

fjksdjk| 7.1.10 @ 2:15AM

beijing massage
shanghai girl

guo | 7.1.10 @ 5:23AM

www.wmvconverterformac.com

Latest Headlines

Green Flags, Yellow Flags, and Black Flags

John Tabin|53 comments

Barack’s Brave New World Blarney

George Neumayr|46 comments

There’s Something About Cambridge

Daniel J. Flynn|27 comments

Obama’s Unaffordable Act

Peter Ferrara|66 comments

Celebrating Our Lady of Paris

Joseph A. Harriss|9 comments

Charter Schooling? Why Not Charter Housing?

Wayne Woodman|16 comments

Cash for Organs?

Eric Boehm|20 comments

Back in the Fray

Kyle Peterson|102 comments

The Spectacle Blog

An Alternate History of the Syrian Civil War

John Tabin | 6:13PM

Peter Wehner Responds

Jeffrey Lord | 5:39PM

CBO Gives Ammunition to Immigration Reform Supporters

Jordan Gonzalez | 5:28PM

Obama Addresses Nuclear Reduction, Climate Change

Claire Healey | 5:07PM

Elbert Guillory: ‘Why I Am a Republican’

Patrick Ryan | 10:13AM

The One Party State

F.H. Buckley | 9:47AM

Cummings Accused of Subverting IRS Investigation

Jeffrey Lord | 6:20AM

Let Pitchers Throw Complete Games

Aaron Goldstein | 12:10AM

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?

The American Spectator

A Further Perspective

Return to Hollywood

About the Author

Letter to the Editor View all comments (148) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Stuart Koehl| 4.28.10 @ 6:50AM

Tom| 4.28.10 @ 7:30AM

Stuart Koehl| 4.28.10 @ 8:12AM

Tom| 4.28.10 @ 9:52AM

Stuart Koehl| 4.28.10 @ 10:13AM

rapid prototype | 4.28.10 @ 10:44PM

Alan Brooks| 4.29.10 @ 12:24AM

Stuart Koehl| 4.29.10 @ 8:12AM

Stuart Koehl| 4.29.10 @ 8:14AM

Alan Brooks| 4.28.10 @ 4:15PM

Richard Baker| 4.28.10 @ 7:37AM

Stuart Koehl| 4.28.10 @ 8:13AM

Alan Brooks| 4.29.10 @ 12:17AM

Stuart Koehl| 4.29.10 @ 4:31PM

Doug from Indiana| 4.28.10 @ 7:42AM

Stuart Koehl| 4.28.10 @ 8:16AM

Jeffrey| 4.28.10 @ 2:52PM

Stuart Koehl| 4.28.10 @ 3:32PM

Stuart Koehl| 4.28.10 @ 8:19AM

Stuart Koehl| 4.28.10 @ 2:21PM

Nick| 4.28.10 @ 8:51AM

Stuart Koehl| 4.28.10 @ 9:58AM

Nick| 4.28.10 @ 12:12PM

Stuart Koehl| 4.28.10 @ 2:08PM

Nick| 4.28.10 @ 5:16PM

Stuart Koehl| 4.28.10 @ 5:38PM

Nick| 4.28.10 @ 7:12PM

Stuart Koehl| 4.28.10 @ 7:23PM

Petronius| 4.28.10 @ 12:32PM

Jim Wilson | 4.28.10 @ 2:42PM

Stuart Koehl| 4.28.10 @ 3:37PM

maverick muse| 4.28.10 @ 3:46PM

donserge| 4.28.10 @ 9:03AM

Stuart Koehl| 4.28.10 @ 10:00AM

donserge| 4.28.10 @ 5:09PM

Stuart Koehl| 4.28.10 @ 6:04PM

P. Smith| 4.28.10 @ 9:39AM

Jim Wilson | 4.28.10 @ 2:46PM

Stuart Koehl| 4.28.10 @ 10:02AM

GB| 4.28.10 @ 11:13AM

Stuart Koehl| 4.28.10 @ 11:18AM

LaneyB| 4.28.10 @ 12:21PM

Stuart Koehl| 4.28.10 @ 10:05AM

Seek| 4.28.10 @ 10:35AM

Citizen Jerry| 4.28.10 @ 10:37AM

Stuart Koehl| 4.28.10 @ 10:45AM

TCM fan| 4.29.10 @ 8:39PM

Stuart Koehl| 4.28.10 @ 10:42AM

mrneige| 4.28.10 @ 11:16AM

Hasukawa| 4.28.10 @ 1:19PM

Stuart Koehl| 4.28.10 @ 2:15PM

Michelle| 4.28.10 @ 11:22AM

LaneyB| 4.28.10 @ 12:27PM

Stuart Koehl| 4.28.10 @ 2:15PM

Louis Jenkins| 4.28.10 @ 11:35AM

Louis Jenkins| 4.28.10 @ 1:28PM

Stuart Koehl| 4.28.10 @ 2:19PM

Nick| 4.28.10 @ 8:24PM

Stuart Koehl| 4.28.10 @ 10:23PM

Gr0w1er| 4.28.10 @ 2:58PM

Stuart Koehl| 4.28.10 @ 3:39PM

Gr0w1er| 4.28.10 @ 3:57PM

Nick| 4.28.10 @ 8:27PM

Stuart Koehl| 4.29.10 @ 7:10AM

Tim| 4.28.10 @ 1:23PM

ejp| 4.28.10 @ 1:59PM

Stuart Koehl| 4.28.10 @ 2:20PM

Citizen Jerry| 4.28.10 @ 3:10PM

Stuart Koehl| 4.28.10 @ 3:41PM

Margie| 4.28.10 @ 3:13PM

Stuart Koehl| 4.28.10 @ 3:42PM

Margie| 4.28.10 @ 4:33PM

Stuart Koehl| 4.28.10 @ 4:51PM

Doug Lee| 4.28.10 @ 6:04PM

Margie| 4.28.10 @ 8:26PM