NOTES:
- Unfortunatley, SDG only gets a brief mention in the story, but it’s nice to see him getting recognition from the MSM. (He’s also been cited by Ebert.)
- Love the NYTnoid headline: "New Cultural Approach for Conservative Christians: Reviews, Not Protests"–as if protesting movies was the only approach conservative Christians have had up till now, never having reviewed and thoughtfully interacted with and critiqued culture up to now.
- One of the other review services mentioned in the article–MovieGuide–is an exceptionally disingenuous entity. In a MASSIVE AND UNPROFESSIONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST the people involved act as a publicity agency for certain movies–which have a suspicious tendency to end up with positive reviews. They also have a knee-jerk Fundamentalist approach to films whose content they don’t like (i.e., "It’s morally objecitonable so it must be artistically lousy, too"). SEE HERE FOR MORE INFO.
Why am I unsurprised to find a quote like this: “Ten years ago, conservatives would say ‘Schindler’s List’ should not be shown because of its nudity,”?
The reason you are unsuprised, Mary, is because you have been acclimatized to a culture of condescension.
Here’s a test to find out if you, like Mary, are also acclimatized: Identify the quote that was actually in the article posted in the above blog . . .
QUOTE #1 – “Like their secular counterparts, Christian critics are diverse in their judgments.”
QUOTE #2 – Like their secular counterparts, Christians are not mutant robot freaks but actual people who eat food and sleep and stuff just like the rest of us!
Link to the Times article didn’t work. I take it SDG is Steve Greydanus. About time the media took notice.
Behr is an awful movie critic. He just doesn’t -get- worldview philosophy, and judges films on silly bases like how many swear words per unit time or how many square inches of skin, totally ignoring -message-.
Or at least he did when I read him and decided not to do so again unless I had dangeriously low blood pressure or something 😉