A Book Review by OneVike
When I first read the title of the book, "The Message Behind The Movie" , my initial response to the title was, the message behind all the movies made today is bad! Now I don't claim to be a movie critic, but I do admit to being very critical of the product put out by Hollywood these days. It is not an opinion I have had all my life, fact is until a I gave my life to Christ I was more of an agnostic when it came to my opinion of movies. Like many Americans, I was oblivious to the influence movies and television had on the way I looked at the world. Whenever I heard others complaining about the bad influence movies had upon society I would shrug my shoulders and consider them a bit too critical for life. I mean, after all, it was just entertainment as far as I was concerned.
When I gave my life to Christ, those rose colored glasses I saw the world through cracked, and the truth began to seep into my consciousness. I began to see the world differently as I started to realize how much of my life has been influenced by the movies I have watched through the years. Eventually I became so enraged by the way Hollywood movies had become propaganda films for leftist political agendas and immoral lifestyles that I not only stopped going to movies but I also gave up on television. So when a friend asked me to read a book about the movies, I hesitated until I read the title, "The Message Behind The Movie". While it was the title that grabbed my curiosity, it was the smoothness of the way the book flowed and the value of its message that made me eager to write this review.
Before I embarked upon my task however, I wanted to know what those whom this book is targeted towards thought about today's movies. In a recent poll of 2513 people, 71% responded that many movies are bad and some are good, while 17% said that all movies are garbage. Interestingly, only 10% thought movies were either harmless entertainment or mostly good. Here is a sampling of some comments I received to my question posted on FreeRepublic.com & PostScripts.com, "What's Your Opinion of Today's Movies":
Libby (PS) "The current penchant for remakes is kinda creepy. The youngsters have nothing of their own to say? "
Jim (PS) "Let me clarify my thought about bad movies. It's a lot like fast food, most of which is unhealthy junk. However a lot of people are willing to pay for this junk, so these companies stay in business."
Jack (PS) "I believe that movies today are designed for people with a low IQ or low education, since they mostly appeal to prurient interests or things that go boom!"
Petronski (FR) "At least two, maybe three, films per year are really quite good. "
robomatik (FR) "good movies are rare, but Hollywood does put out a few good ones from time to time."
demshateGod (FR) "Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful. (Psalm 1:1) That pretty much rules out all movies."
RoadTest (FR) "My opinion of today's movies is that they are unfit for human consumption.
Check6 (FR) "Much worse than worthless. "
Tammy8 (FR) "I don't watch many movies- I hate to spend good money and be disappointed... it takes the right kind of movie to even interest hubby and I. "
TheOldLady "Movies are one of the ways that the left has taken over the country.......... If it's too much propaganda and not enough entertainment, we just hit "eject".......
Then there was this comment by a Freeper named, 3catsanadog that pretty much summed up my take;
"There are not too many movies made anymore that will inspire me to get out and watch them in a theater. I also don't feel like spending my hard earned money on some lib propaganda and lib movie star."
My feeling towards movies put me with the 90% who find very little, if anything, redeemable in today's movies. When considering those the author is trying to reach, I must admit that I would be a prime candidate to see if reading his book proves valuable in the task that he proposes.
Douglas Beaumont, the author, is an instructor at Southern Evangelical Seminary where he is also pursuing a Ph.D. in philosophy of religion. A self-proclaimed movie junkie, Doug wanted to unite his interest in theology, philosophy, and apologetics with his love of film. In "The Message Behind The Movie", Doug attempts to help the reader do a better job of interacting with the secular culture by understanding the movies that shape and reveal it. By introducing various aspects of how a story is told the reader will find himself better equiped to steer non-believers into discussions about faith, a process the author calls cinevangelism. It may seem strange and almost heretical to mention secular entertainment and evangelism in the same sentence, but in Acts 17 Paul himself used Greek philosophical arguments from creation to lead pagan philosophers to Christ. It is these kinds of eye opening methods that Doug leads the reader through while providing a foundation of Scriptural truths that will help a believer properly evaluate a movie.
"The Message Behind The Movie" is written in three acts much like the ancient structure of plays were divided by Aristotle into three acts. Each act is then divided into chapters that explain how stories and characters develop along established patterns that have been followed since Syd Field wrote his landmark book, "Screenplay". These lessons are significant when you consider that most moviegoers don't usually think in terms of character or structure while watching a movie. The book will inevitably bless even the most experienced of movie buffs.
Act One, the author explains how movies communicate through various means and how to understand the way stories are told. The reader is introduced to such characters as the protagonist and the herald, along with how to pay attention to the sights and sounds. The first section closes out with a discussion of the way the story is told, its supposition presented, and how to put all this information into practice so you can properly understand a film. By the end of the first section you have a better understanding of how to let a movie speak for itself without distractions interfering with its message. I was unable to set the book down at this point, as I was eagerly awaiting the next section and the lessons I would glean from it.
Act Two gives the reader a lesson in how to properly discuss and evaluate the different aspects of a movie, whether that be religious, philosophical, theological, or Scriptural. It is no secret that Hollywood either portrays Christianity as an outdated religion whose followers are narrow minded, or it presents a false gospel that leads people away from the truth. This section was my favorite in that Doug shows off his apologetical skills by presenting various lessons on how to defend the faith and by pointing out negatives and positives of the movie's message, without getting into a deep religious discussion that would turn off non Christians.
In the final chapter, Act Three, the author discusses the issues that Christians raise about the value of movies and introduces principles that can be applied when choosing which movies to watch and which ones to avoid. Many Christians, in defending their stance for or against movies, will use various verses from the Bible. The author takes these Scriptures and puts them in their proper context to help the reader better understand his take on the value movies can have for cinevangelizing. As I finished reading this last chapter I must honestly say I felt better equipped to not only understand the message behind the movie, but also how to use the message as a tool to defend and proclaim my faith as a Christian. It is my opinion that Christians who enjoy going to the movies should read "The Message Behind the Movie", before they see their next film. I understand Sandra Bullock has a new movie called "The Proposal" playing at the theater; I think I'll take my wife to the movies.
Thanks OV,
I am always looking for good reading material for those lazy afternoon days when I just want to veg on the couch with a cup of coffee or ice tea. I'll take your advice and purchase the book, but it may be awhile before I actually get a chance to read though. I'm still moving in and I'm not quite sure where my coffee maker is.
I do hope it's not in the last box we open. My son and his wife did get their last box opened until two years after they moved in. I do not think I could wait that long, besides it gets expensive going down the street to the Circle K. LOL.
Well, thanks again for the great review of your friends book.
Nancy D. :)
I remember your poll article, so this is the book. Well if the book is just half as good as your review is, then I think I will enjoy it. I too am not much for the movies, but if this book can help me enjoy them again, it can only be a positive.
It is wise to apply skepticism and through critical evaluation to everything you read, watch, hear and think. That includes the religious doctrine
If it is not fair to 'judge a book by its cover', is it fair to judge it by its author? Doug Beaumont is to film criticism, what William Dembski is to objective scientific method. Touting all of his higher degrees (none of which include the Art of Film) from the very institution he teaches at (which equates to academic 'fraudulentis ad nauseum') he is decribed by his institution as Professor, but without a Phd. This is the same institution that misappropriates the credentials of every apologist, psuedo-cultural christian icon, and anyone it deems in line with its own biases, who walk through their door, as 'non-resident faculty'.
Most, if not all favorable critical reviews of this book are either submitted by personal friends or suck-up students, on his own blog space or that of personal friends, who control all content. Not to mention Amazon, where reviewers are overwhelmingly first timers with Charlotte addresses (i.e. the location of his school).
Always one to misrepresent himself one step ahead than reality allocates, so too the institution which backs him continues to represent itself as an academic powerhouse by soliciting reviews by former alumni and potential apologist backscrathers in a greasy incestual publicity gangbang. The sad thing about christian apologetics, beyond its unwavering defense of its own particular brand of truth, is how it either misrepresents or overexaggerates its own credentials to gain some sort of academic noteriety and credibility.
Beaumont the individual seems more intent on producing a significant AMOUNT of psuedo-academic publications than producing a SIGNIFICANT publication. If apologists truly cared about espousing absolute Truth, they would not entertain embellishments of their own flavor of Truth.
The book is TRASH! Save your money!!
T.R.Uth: Touting all of his higher degrees (none of which include the Art of Film) from the very institution he teaches at (which equates to academic 'fraudulentis ad nauseum') he is decribed by his institution as Professor, but without a Phd.
According to Webster Unabridged the first definition for professor is:
1 one who professes, avows, or declares b chiefly dialect : one who professes the Christian religion openly or conspicuously and ardently
The second definition fits your pompous world view:
2 a : a faculty member of the highest academic rank at an institution of higher education usually dividing his time between scholarship and lecturing and teaching mainly advanced students — often used as an academic title with of *professor of ancient history* b : a teacher at a university, college, or secondary school : PEDAGOGUE c : one who teaches or professes special knowledge of an art, sport, or occupation requiring skill *a professor of the machine* *the artist was the unchallenged professor of his art— W.A.Martin* d : one who is conspicuous for being quiet and overly serious : one who is bookish
T.R.Uth: Most, if not all favorable critical reviews of this book are either submitted by personal friends or suck-up students, on his own blog space or that of personal friends, who control all content. Not to mention Amazon, where reviewers are overwhelmingly first timers with Charlotte addresses (i.e. the location of his school).
Who died a made you book Czar?
Since you think of yourself as an intellectual giant you might want to reconsider the word "at" in the following from your smug little rant:
"...from the very institution he teaches at..."
All Gods children got opinions...some are better than others.
Tina,
Easier to attack the individual isn't it? Proof and point about the Christian Apologetic mindset: Because I don't agree, I'm a baaaaad person.
No, I just have a dislike for frauds and those who misrepresent themselves by twisting the truth into their own little mold, regardless of the Webster's dictionary defaults in defense of lax academic standards.
"Who died a(nd) made you book Czar?" "Since you think of yourself as an intellectual giant you might want to" try reading a style manual or using a spell check, you loving little Christian, you. What are you, his wife? or just a Ravi wannabee with too much time on her hands?
Okay, TRUth, I'm not going to let you talk that way to Tina. She has shown you nothing but patience and she is a lady who deserves to be treated as such. Maybe you don't respect manners, but it's time to learn or you won't be debating anyone here.
Debate facts on any subject, but if you take it personal and start with the baiting and name calling you are history. Your choice. Final warning.
Jack Lee
Jack Lee,
Your point is well taken. However, I debate the fact that it was Tina who began the personal jabs concerning my opinion of the author and his credentials. I also consider her descriptions such as "pompous worldview", "smug little rant", and the assertion "you think of yourself as an intellectual giant", as uncalled for belittlement and baiting short of ladylike patience. Does this blog sight hold a double standard?
Thanks for your candor. I apologize.
T.R.Uth: *Easier to attack the individual isn't it? Proof and point about the Christian Apologetic mindset: Because I don't agree, I'm a baaaaad person.*
I didn't call you a bad person, interesting you took it that way. What I did is assess your treatment of the author and his work using the same method you used.
*No, I just have a dislike for frauds and those who misrepresent themselves by twisting the truth into their own little mold...*
You have a right to this opinion and a right to express it. I have the same right.
My evaluation that you think of yourself as an intellectual giant and that you can be smug has been reaffirmed:
*...you might want to" try reading a style manual or using a spell check, you loving little Christian, you. What are you, his wife? or just a Ravi wannabee with too much time on her hands?
I find your assessment that I displayed, "uncalled for belittlement" and "baiting short of ladylike patience" a bit amusing since my remarks mirror your own style:
"Doug Beaumont is to film criticism, what William Dembski is to objective scientific method."
"Touting all of his higher degrees (none of which include the Art of Film)..."
"(which equates to academic 'fraudulentis ad nauseum')"
"...misappropriates the credentials of every apologist, psuedo-cultural christian icon, and anyone it deems in line with its own biases..."
"...submitted by personal friends or suck-up students, on his own blog space or that of personal friends, who control all content. Not to mention Amazon, where reviewers are overwhelmingly first timers with Charlotte addresses..."
"Always one to misrepresent himself one step ahead than reality allocates, so too the institution which backs him continues to represent itself as an academic powerhouse..."
"potential apologist backscrathers in a greasy incestual publicity gangbang..."
"...misrepresents or overexaggerates its own credentials to gain some sort of academic noteriety and credibility."
"Beaumont the individual seems more intent on producing a significant AMOUNT of psuedo-academic publications than producing a SIGNIFICANT publication."
"...they would not entertain embellishments of their own flavor of Truth."
"The book is TRASH!"
I don't know the author and have not read the book.
As for my own style and spelling? I make spelling mistakes at times, most people do. I took exception to your english skills only to demonstrate that we all make errors. This is a blog. It's an informal format. The aim at Post Scripts is to provide a fun and entertaining place for ourselves and others. We enjoy learning new things and hearing the opinions of others...even those that might seem pompous and smug!
Your apology to Jack was nice. It would be interesting to hear your opinions on other subjects. I hope you will post again.
In answer to your question, we really try hard not to set a double standard and we do try to keep each other (PS writers) honest. Please accept my appoligies if you were personally offended here, that is not our aim, trust me! When passions run hot as they often do here, it is easy to stray across the fine line of decorum, so forgiveness is often a virtue we count on regularly!
Thank you TRUth for your candor. Tina G will be reading this and I am sure she will weigh in as soon as she can. Till then, feel free to disagree when you are moved to do so and make your case! We want to hear from you. We live for free speech... with input from all sides!!!
Again Tina,
Having a taste of your own medicine is hard to swallow.
Your personal opinions of me are non-essential. My response was to Jack. If you were Doug Beaumont going for my jugular, then I would understand. My review of this guy was meant to be scathing. However, I didn't attack previous blogs or bloggers and only reponded to you in kind and then proceeded to refute Jack's allegations. Yet you still see fit to attack me after I apologized. I have reviewed your postings on this site and have noticed that you make sport of personally attacking just about anyone, or everyone, that doesn't meet you eye to eye on issues. An observation - not a value judgement. If this is your primary style, insult drive-bys, than at least be a good enough sport to take what you dish out. Personal attacks are not "debate". They are personal attacks regardless of educated rebuttal suffixes. If you truly want to increase participation and promote freedom of speech, I would suggest dropping your antagonistic hostility. In simple logic it is a fallacy referred to as 'Argumentum ad Hominem' abusive by nature and it actually hurts the credibility and legitimacy of its antagonist, not the opposition.
I AGAIN apologize for reciprocating in like.
I did like your prayer request for the captured soldier's family from Idaho. It was Christlike. Something we all, me included, should emulate more often.
Jack Lee, for what it is worth, you seem like a fair moderator and seek to protect the integrity of your people, yay or nay. Hats off.
End of Diatribe.
I find you comments to be insulting since you never once said you even read his book. If you have not, then I would suggest that the next time you decide to attack the author of any book, read it first. What you have done is what the MSM does. They drive by and lob grenades of insults and innuendos at some unsuspecting individual who has put time and effort into something they did. Truth matters not to you, or you would have offered evidence for your claims. So instead of criticizing the contents of the book, you criticize the author and those around him.
As I said, I do not read in your drive by attack any educated reason as to why you disdain him other than personal reasons. You may disagree with his religious philosophy as you say, but even then you give no proof for your claims. If you have half the education you insinuate you do, then you should know that Doug has accomplished something that 99.99% of the population will never achieve in their life. Are you jealous that you yourself have not published a book that anyone has read? I do not ask just to be insulting, but as an observation.
After reading your diatribe, (your words not mine) I am find your criticism of the institution Mr. Beaumont attends and teaches at to be baseless. You claim they "misappropriate the credentials of every apologist, psuedo-cultural christian icon, and anyone it deems in line with its own biases, who walk through their door, as 'non-resident faculty'. Please enlighten me so that I can do the proper investigation into your claims.
You state that you have not attacked previous blogs or bloggers, well then you obviously have read a few articles that have been posted here. Maybe you have read a few things I have written, maybe not. However I find your attacks upon Mr. Beaumont to be baseless. I ask you for proof, and please cease with the adhominem attacks on a person who, quite frankly will probably never read what you wrote here. I challenge you on very aspect of your claims you made, and I will check each and every claim to see whether or not they are based upon fact or fiction as I believe they are.
Oh yea, when you submit your claims, I expect them to be accompanied by a detailed account of all your academic credentials. I will be investigating them to see exactly who gave you those credentials, and how they qualify you to make the claims have.
Your brother in Christ
OneVike
OneVike,
You're absolutely right. I concede. I was wondering when you were going to chime in.
Wow! I didn't even get past the Foreward without seeing an interesting parallel, or perpendicular???
The foreward is written by Barbara Nicolosi, a Catholic, whose church espouses the inter-relationship of Creation and Evolution, both in its doctrine and universities. However, Doug warns us against these heretics on his personal website:
http://www.dougbeaumont.org/SoulDevice/christian_doctrine_fundamentals.htm
Quoting..."A person or church that openly teaches contrary to the Bible on even secondary issues (i.e. evolution) are to be avoided." ...except not in instances where their input can be exploited for commercial gain. Ahhhhhh! Now I understand...
Plain and simple, your friend who has done "99.99% more than humanity" is simply an egomaniacal hypocryte and I took my own advice by saving my money. Again, my critique was to be as exactly as you all described. Maybe every public personality that gets slammed on this site should chime in and send their buddies to write nice things about them, Bronx cheering all opposition. But I guess that would upset your publicity Love-In. If he was serious about criticism he should ask a reputable source, like maybe the New York Times Book Review to give it a round instead of personal buddies who give stellar "objective" critiques and other weak at the knees Apologists.
As far as credentials, I got my PhD from the dumpster behind Wal-Mart. They're open 24 hrs, so you wont have any problems investigating all of my accolades. What bucket do yours drop yours into? I may want to take a sniff sometime.
Mr.Beaumont is well aware of what I think of him.
Smug little intellectual giant signing off.