Hollywoods Attack On Religion :: essays research papers

Hollywoods Attack on ReligionThe section that I have elect to analyze from the book Hollywood vs.America is "The Attack on Religion." In this part of the book, Michael Medveddiscusses the shift in attitude Hollywood has made toward religion, from unexceptionable to contemptible. He takes a look at the messages being sent in films,music and television in the last 15 to 20 age and analyzes their effects. Ingeneral, Hollywood depicts religion in an unfavorable manner, according toMedved. Moreover, Medved withal argues that, not only has Hollywood taken ahostile stead toward religion, but it has paying(a) the price, literally, for doingso. All of Medveds arguments are well back up and documented, make themseemingly futile to argue against. Yet, Hollywood, which includes films, musicand television, continues to disregard the obvious facts that Medved hasrevealed.In the first chapter of this section, "A Declaration of War," Medveddiscusses the facts surrounding the resist which took place on August 11, 1988,in opposition to the release of the motion picture The finale Temptation of Christ.MCA/ ecumenical, which funded the Martin Scorsese film, called the protesters a"know-nothing wacky pack" (38). However, as Medved points out, the protest was"the largest protest ever mounted against the release of a motion picture" (37)and include such groups as the National Council of Catholic Bishops, theSouthern Baptist Convention, twenty members of the U.S. offer of Representativesand self-aggrandizing figures such as Mother Teresa of Calcutta and Ken Wales, former offense president at Disney studios. Even with such strong opposition from these respected groups and people, the studio refused to listen and stood behind itsFirst Amendment rights.MCA/Universal was even incarnateed by the Motion Picture Association ofAmerica, which stated that "The . . . MPAA support MCA/Universal in its absoluteright to offer to the people whatever m oving-picture show it chooses" (41). However, Medvedrebukes this statement, arguing that "absolute right" wasnt the issue theissue "concerned the exposure companys choices, not its rights" (41). He supportsthis argument further by indicating that the MPAA would never support a filmportraying Malcolm X as a paid agent of Hoovers FBI or portraying Anne Frank"as an out-of-control nymphomaniac" (41). By releasing The Last Temptation ofChrist, the studio positions Jesus, God and Christianity below these prominentfigures in history because it is portraying Jesus and other religious figures inuncharacteristic situations that would never be associated with these historicalfigures. This is supported by noncurrent experiences when movies were edited so as tonot offend animal rights activists, queer advocacy groups, and ethnic