|
CAP Website
I first heard about it in 1999. The Blair Witch Project had just come out, and I'd been told contains "One hundred thirty seven uses of the most foul of the foul words." I took it as nothing, and never really bothered looking at it.
For those of you who don't know, this is the "ChildCare Action Project: Christian Analysis of American Culture." It is anything but a real analysis. They hide behind mathematics and faith to give you a very subjective and skewed look at film. They ignore the messages of the film and instead rely on topical content. Touches, certain words said, implications. And dammit, they give away the endings far too much for my taste.
But ya know what? This is the single funniest thing I've read in a long time.
I finally got around to looking at it after reading Roger Ebert's bi-weekly "movie answer man" column, in which he answers a question revolving around a CAP review. So you won't have to look yourself, the question concerns a CAP statement on an "inappropriate touch" in Spielberg's Jurassic Park, alluding to the scene at the end where Sam Neill's Alan Grant pulls a girl up a heating vent to prevent her ingestion by a Velociraptor, and he places his hand on her ass. This is but a minor complaint from me, and rather than going into long and overly detailed arguments, I'd rather give a series of examples.Bicentennial Man was a movie that I expected to loath. I finally saw it, and it wasn't too bad. CAP's review, in the first paragraph, uses the film as a soapbox for its political agendas, and in the process makes bizarre speculations on the "hidden meaning" of the movies. This includes, and I quote, "Well into the 21st century the World Court, the "Clinton Court" of the future, had the power to decide whether an individual was human or not, just like the higher courts of our land can now decide whether an unborn baby is a human. And though Kevorkian is now in prison for his involvement in assisted suicides, his legacy lives on in this movie as the elderly may order their servant robots to turn off the life support systems of their "masters." And, of course, the movie was as biased as the pro-homosexual movies -- those who were against the central agenda of the use of robots were presented as small minded and abrasive."
Tim Burton's Planet of the Apes started promising, and in the
end fell apart. It was OK, but I disliked. CAP's review dismissed the entire
film because it was based on
Fight Club was a wicked satire on the so-called "90's man", in my opinion. I have few complaints on the movie. CAP's review gives away the ending in the first paragraph. I'm going to quote them again now, so if you haven't seen the movie, I suggest skipping this (highlight to read the text)
"The central figure, a bored milquetoast business man, had a vision. He envisioned he was the street-wise tough guy who loved to fight. And then the street wise tough guy became real, at least for the milquetoast man. Together, the two .. er .. the one plus ? created fight clubs all over the country."
Of course, the writer here completely ignores the message behind the violence, and instead focuses on the bloody and brutal violence itself. I'm against gratuitous violence, but in this film is was far from it. It's SUPPOSED to be disturbing. Great films are not a walk in the park. Great films require analysis to appreciate, and if you simply dismiss it I feel you miss out on a potentially great experience.
The Exorcist is called vulgar and is dismissed because it depicts a child in danger, as well as saying an exorcism would take a long time. Apparently, Christians believe the very name of Jesus would cause Satan to leave, and so the final battle in the movie destroys the entire movie. Plus, those goddamn naughty swears are in there. Ha!While I'm on The Exorcist, I should probably point out that I don't know what's worse. Is it worse that the writer(s) of this site are so close minded that they ignore art for pretty pictures that don't make you think, or that they have to place a quote on top of some reviews saying that they do not tolerate profane hate mail. I say the latter. While reading this, I urge you to NOT spam this site with profane e-mail. If you have constructive criticism stated in a calm and rational manner that you wish to give them, by all means do so. Hell, I'd like to read it. But do me a favor and leave my name out of your e-mails to them. The last thing I need right now is to be on a religious extremists' shit list. Those of you more ignorant than the rest of the herd will probably think that it's only muslims who can be extremist. Does anyone remember Jim Jones?
The main problem with the site is that they ignore the fact that realism is not reality. So often in those reviews do I find statements like "people say films are so realistic, but they don't need to be " That's bullshit. Films are not reality. Art is not reality. Realism is an artistic construct. The thing with realism is that it exists alongside reality. Satire works because it exaggerates certain key elements. Realism works because it exaggerates similar elements in differing fashions. This leads me to my next example of complaint.Beloved was a brilliant film (in your Narrator's humble opinion) which starred Oprah, of all people. CAP hated it because, among other things, it showed children out of wedlock, demon possession, "unnecessary cleavage", and the most funny well, it's this: "bizarre kissing of scars."
The point of the film is ignored because it's graphic. The film is dismissed because it jilts your senses. Because it hits a nerve and makes you think, it's called blasphemous. What's even more rich is this one: "Before you say to yourself 'Gimme a break! Slavery and brutality against the African Americans were real so why slash the score because of them?' remember that this was just a movie. There was nothing real about it. Oprah Winfrey and Danney (misspelling done on the part of CAP: author)Glover were not in the mid-nineteenth century during slavery. This movie was Hollywood film-making fanfare, nothing more - nothing less."Yep, it IS "just a movie" but that doesn't mean it has to be passive and droll entertainment, to be forgotten within an hour. This goes back to my previous statement that REALISM IS NOT REALITY. These people are right. Danny Glover and Oprah Winfrey are not slaves. Mr. Glover is a very talented actor, and Oprah's got more money than God. But, using something called acting, they pretend to be this in order to provide realism. Not reality, realism.
Movies that show a child in danger are criticized. Movies that show people returning from the dead are blasphemous. Go through this site, and you'll find there's not much there that they actually DO like. Movies are railed not as a critical exercise, but as a close-minded procedure that dismisses any no-no's they find. Any time any sort of sexual act is even hinted at. Any time any naughty words are uttered. Hell, they pretty much fell right into South Park's satire when they railed on it for its language (the so-called "reviewer" claims to have actually cried at that movie.)People are allowed to have their opinions. Mother would say that these people are entitled to their own opinions. She's right. But I can still laugh at their expense. But to be completely ignorant of what's going on in front of them to completely ignore the message in a work of art in favor of a few bells and whistles to absolutely refuse to hear the arguments before making their decisions that just makes me cringe. They think I'm wrong, I'm sure. So they can laugh at me. We learned from Jerry Falwell that a Christian will indeed point his finger at "sinners."
One final note isn't it ironic that these people don't believe in evolution, and yet they're the ones who say that this stuff will make you act it out? If humans are removed from animals and are not evolved from anything, why will these things affect anyone? There's a gaping contradiction there, and it's one many of these people don't seem too willing to address. I tell ya what evolution is a fact. Not a theory, a fact. I don't come to this conclusion the same way they come to their conclusions. I do not say it's something you have to have faith in. What I have backing me up is centuries of empirical research. That's the great thing about keeping an open mind. If something doesn't work you change it. I'm completely willing to go with something else if something is discovered that looks Darwin in the face and heaves forth a mighty "NI!"Now, I'm not against religion. I don't really hate Christians. I instead detest any close-minded asshole who ignores fact in favor of blind allegiance. It's people like this who give the smart ones a bad name. I've said it before, and I'll say it again why Oh why can't all religious people be like St. Augustin?
For those of you curious, the website is here.