Saved! The Movie, Hollywood Left attacks the Christians with Mandy Moore!

[amicus]

http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110005236



HOUSES OF WORSHIP

Lost About 'Saved'
A movie makes fun of Evangelical Christians. This took courage?

BY JONATHAN V. LAST
Friday, June 18, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT

With "Saved!" having gone wide last week, the rest of America now has a chance to see Brian Dannelly's satire of life at an evangelical high school. Or, as the film's producer, Michael Stipe, put it: "Saved!" is "like those monster vampire high school kind of movies, only here the monsters are Jesus-freak teenagers."

In the weeks leading up to the movie's release, United Artists, the studio behind it, nervously suggested that it thought--hoped--that "Saved!" would play to the same religious audience that made "The Passion of the Christ" such a hit. Peter Adee of MGM (UA's parent company) told the New York Times that the movie "has a certain Christian appeal, but it's also a little irreverent."

That anyone could believe such a movie to have "Christian appeal" is one measure of how out of touch Hollywood is. The irreverence of "Saved!" consists of portraying most Christians as dim, many as malevolent and all as hypocritical. Wisdom and good faith do make an appearance in "Saved!," but they are displayed by explicitly antireligious characters.

Give Mr. Adee credit, however. By suggesting that the movie was intended for Christian audiences, he was inoculating Messrs. Dannelly, Stipe, et al. from charges that "Saved!" had been fashioned precisely as an attack on Christians.

Such a charge would not have been groundless. But Mr. Adee's maneuvering turned out to be unnecessary. Critics, on the whole, found nothing especially offensive in the movie's satire on Christian belief.

Don R. Lewis, of Film Threat, wrote that "Saved!" is "a sweet and funny movie that starts off with bite but settles into an honest feeling of happiness and acceptance for all types of people and their choices." Of course, he doesn't really mean all types of people. He went on to note that the movie is "a gentle exploration of why the judgments of the Catholic church are so screwed up." ("Saved!" is about evangelical Christians--not Catholics--but you know how it is. They all look alike.)

John Leonard of CBS thought the movie "good-hearted," while Manohla Dargis, in the Los Angeles Times, labeled it "a soft-bellied, sweet-tempered satire." Both Newsweek and the New York Times judged as merely "gentle" the ribbing that "Saved!" gives to Christians.

Too gentle, for some. The Chicago Tribune lamented that "after bravely lampooning an institution so many consider beyond reproach, Saved! chickens out." Michael Atkinson, from the Village Voice, wrote that American evangelicals--whom he called "warmongers praying for corpse-heaped victory"--need "a good, steel-tipped satiric whipping," and that the movie didn't deliver it. For good measure, he added: "the born-again, one-hand-in-the-air prayer stance. . .resembles a Nazi salute." Ms. Dargis faulted "Saved!" for not having the courage to "admit that some of [God's] most ardent believers will always be invested in hate."

Other reviewers were not so dismissive of Mr. Dannelly's grit. "Teasing Christians," said Newsweek, "is risky business." David Denby, in The New Yorker, solemnly nodded, adding that although "Saved!" was not an attack on Christianity, "to make it at all took courage."

Actually, it took no courage, since the movie plays straight into Hollywood's smug stereotypes about religion, especially the non-Buddhist variety. And besides, the Christian community did not rise up to smite the makers of "Saved!" The movie was given respectful--one might say gentle--treatment in places such as Christianity Today. The lone voice raised against it was Jerry Falwell's. Talking about this condemnation, Mr. Dannelly admitted that "it doesn't exactly hurt."

The movie did get some rough treatment, but not for its anti-Christian theme. You see, the main character, a high-school senior, gets pregnant while having sex with her gay boyfriend. She then carries their baby to term. Owen Gleiberman of Entertainment Weekly lamented that the girl's "crisis is 'resolved' with a starry-eyed naivete that borders on the irresponsible.

I wish that Saved! weren't a facile pro-life movie." Mr. Atkinson was likewise bothered by the way "the narrative fastidiously avoids . . . the possibility of abortion." Ditto for Mr. Denby. And double ditto for Salon's Stephanie Zacharek, who spent a quarter of her review on this lament.

Mr. Stipe has recently said that "anyone of faith who is secure in that faith probably has a sense of humor about it and would like the movie." Perhaps so. And "Saved!" is not without likable qualities, as Joe Morgenstern noted in this newspaper. But there are all sorts of faith. Those who believe in abortion found it easy enough to be bothered by "Saved!" Those who believe in the evil of American Christians found much to recommend it.

Mr. Last in online editor of The Weekly Standard.

http://www.dvdmoviecentral.com/ReviewsText/saved.htm

“…Saved follows a senior class at a Christian high school from before the beginning of the school year until prom. The main character is Mary (Malone), a girl raised in the church but who is about to experience a debilitating crisis of faith. When her boyfriend admits he might be gay, she figures Jesus would want her to help cure him, so she sleeps with him, figuring her Savior will restore her virginity as a reward for such a selfless act. But instead, she ends up pregnant…”

“…The school year plays out with Mary trying to hide her blossoming condition while coming to realize that Christians like Hilary Faye are the true bad guys of the world. The kids in the movie who reject faith are the heroic figures. They're the ones who really love their neighbors. If you're a Christian, you're just a self-absorbed hypocrite. Wow...isn't this hysterical stuff? No wonder critics were wetting themselves with laughter and climbing over each other to write the blurbs of praise that would end up on the movie poster….”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I watched this film on television a few nights ago and came away wondering just how the Hollywood Left was going to get away with such a scathing portrayal of a Christian school and students and in fact the whole rigmarole of satire and irony about such a sacred cow as Christianity.

Apparently they did.

The Liberal left, not yet having learned the lesson of the anti gay marriage bills voted on in the 2004 elections, may well be in for another huge surprise as voters reject democrats and liberals in general in the 2006 and 2008 elections.

Even Hilary and Kerry ending speeches with, “…and God Bless America…” aka Josiah Bartlett from the West Wing, ain’t gonna make this skunk smell pretty.

(forum was getting dull)


amicus…

 

[elsol]

Aren't you like... an atheist.

You're going in the pot too... just going to take them longer to get to you.

But we will... HALLELUJAH!


Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[English Lady]

I will have to see the film before i can say anything about it specifically, but a bit of humour is somtimes the best way of geting over a message.


Ms. Dargis faulted "Saved!" for not having the courage to "admit that some of [God's] most ardent believers will always be invested in hate."


The above line struck a chord with me, because sadly,it's true. Some "believers" seem to manage to read the bible and not get the message whatsoever. All I can say is that I reckon they're gonna get a surprise come judgement day


I've got to say, Amicus, you've at least piqued my interest in the film, I'll be seeking it out for a watch

 

[Pure]

well, ami, as an atheist, what do you think the penalty should be for attacking Christianity (assuming that's what is done)? some sort of law against blasphemy, as there once was?

perhaps local vigilante action against theatre owners?

a fatwa against the films producers, writers and main actors--let's say the Evangelical groups put a million dollar bounty on each head?

 

[Selena_Kitt]

(forum was getting dull)

LOL!
One of the reasons you are so interesting to me, Ami...

gotta stir that pot, sir... every now and then...

 

[Boota]

I've seen Saved and I liked it. It didn't come off to me as attacking Christians at all, which wouldn't have bothered me, but that's not what the movie is about. I know Christians EXACTLY like the "villains" of the movie.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

I find it hilarious that an atheist is constantly defending Christian values, and self-proclaimed lover of freedom defending restrictions on civil liberties, but amicus is likable and intelligent otherwise, so I'll just laugh it off. As a pagan, I'm not exactly offended by attacks on a religion that has long mocked and persecuted my own.

 

[Recidiva]

I thought it was a great movie. It wasn't really anti-Christian, it just took place in an extreme Christian setting. It was thoughtful and funny and managed to take Christians and ultimately put them in reasonable conflicts that Christians can face and reasonable outcomes. It just took the extreme out of the people and made them more moderate with experience. It didn't make them anti-Christian, it made them make their own choices.

I liked it a lot. If you have a sense of humor (which if you're seeing a movie like this, you'd better), it's a combination of good writing and good acting.

That and Party Monster made me a McCauley Culkin fan. Something I didn't think would be possible.

 

[Sex and Death]

Before christians are christian, they are human, and, therefore...

often absurdly funny as all get out, like the rest of us.

 

[JamesSD]

I watched this film on television a few nights ago and came away wondering just how the Hollywood Left was going to get away with such a scathing portrayal of a Christian school and students and in fact the whole rigmarole of satire and irony about such a sacred cow as Christianity.

Saved was such a good movie. Completely hilarious, and a great send up of high school "Christians" (who almost never behave as such).

I should buy that movie. It really is that good.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

well, ami, as an atheist, what do you think the penalty should be for attacking Christianity (assuming that's what is done)? some sort of law against blasphemy, as there once was?

perhaps local vigilante action against theatre owners?

a fatwa against the films producers, writers and main actors--let's say the Evangelical groups put a million dollar bounty on each head?

None of that is really neccessary J. Or even relevant. If a movie does well at te box, the theme will be revisited, either in sequels or in rehashes with a slightly different cast and spin. If it fails at the box, you probably won't see it done again.

The final arbiter is how much money it made at the box, vs. how much it cost to produce. With some subjects, you also have to factor in possible economic loss generated by boycotts of your theatre/production company.

Film is an industry and like all industry, the bottom line is going to define whether or not a bussiness decision was a good one, to be emmulated inthe future or a bad one to be shunned.

I haven't seen it, don't intend to see it, but since I see maybe a movie every three or four years, my opinion isn't pertinent to the studios.

Studios know who goes to see movies. They know the dmographics each genre appeals to, they know to within a nicetiy how much is too much, be it sex, violence, romance, etc. The even know the attention span, how long is too long and how short just isn't enough. the people this is most likely to ofend, just happen to be a demographic who are not likely to be regular movie goiers. The people it is most likely to appeal to, probably kids in the 18 to 25 bracket are your serial movie goers.

There is no need to make a law, the only law that matters is in place and immutable. When it finishes it's run on the new rack at Blcokbuster, that law kicks in. What it cost to make, produce, publicize etc. will be subtractied from what it grossed. If that final number is over a certain threshold, it's a go. If it falls beneath that threshold, it's a wash. If it lost money, teh idea probably won't see the light of day again for at least ten years.

 

[JamesSD]

There is no need to make a law, the only law that matters is in place and immutable. When it finishes it's run on the new rack at Blcokbuster, that law kicks in. What it cost to make, produce, publicize etc. will be subtractied from what it grossed. If that final number is over a certain threshold, it's a go. If it falls beneath that threshold, it's a wash. If it lost money, teh idea probably won't see the light of day again for at least ten years.

Good points. Just don't forget DVD sales, which have become a very important part of a film's bottom line. In many ways this is where consumers have the most direct impact on movie success.

 

[Pure]

Colly said,

There is no need to make a law [to penalize attacks on Christianity], the only law that matters is in place and immutable. When it finishes it's run on the new rack at Blcokbuster, that law kicks in. What it cost to make, produce, publicize etc. will be subtractied from what it grossed. If that final number is over a certain threshold, it's a go. If it falls beneath that threshold, it's a wash. If it lost money, teh idea probably won't see the light of day again for at least ten years

I understand that well. But as you know, when the 'free market' make 'decisions' NOT to amicus liking, he tries to figures some authoritarian way to enforce his views. Probably the evangelical Christians, if they are as offended as amicus on their behalf, will try to do more than 'stay away.' Just as the guardians of TV did more than turn off sets when Nicolle Sheridan made her naked leap. (They wanted fines and other penalites.) The idea of regulating the internet comes from the same motive; unwillingness to let the market determine what's available to adults (a great many of whom like porn).

 

[JamesSD]

(a great many of whom like porn).

Everyone sing along:

The Internet is for Porn,
The Internet is for Porn,
So grab your dick and double click,
Porn, Porn, Porn!

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Colly said,

There is no need to make a law [to penalize attacks on Christianity], the only law that matters is in place and immutable. When it finishes it's run on the new rack at Blcokbuster, that law kicks in. What it cost to make, produce, publicize etc. will be subtractied from what it grossed. If that final number is over a certain threshold, it's a go. If it falls beneath that threshold, it's a wash. If it lost money, teh idea probably won't see the light of day again for at least ten years

I understand that well. But as you know, when the 'free market' make 'decisions' NOT to amicus liking, he tries to figures some authoritarian way to enforce his views. Probably the evangelical Christians, if they are as offended as amicus on their behalf, will try to do more than 'stay away.' Just as the guardians of TV did more than turn off sets when Nicolle Sheridan made her naked leap. (They wanted fines and other penalites.) The idea of regulating the internet comes from the same motive; unwillingness to let the market determine what's available to adults (a great many of whom like porn).

Sadly, there are more people out there intent on minding my bussiness than there should be. I understand your point all to well. and yes, there will probably be some who want retributive action. there always are.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Everyone sing along:

The Internet is for Porn,
The Internet is for Porn,
So grab your dick and double click,
Porn, Porn, Porn!

That's about 75% or more of it, yes. Then again, there is NOTHING wrong with porn. It's so universal that even those who claim to hate it actually love it.

 

[English Lady]

Amicus, let me start by saying thank you I seeked out and have just watched "Saved."

I'm a Christian, always have been and I have to say, as it opened I did just feel a little uncomfortable. This will probably reflect badly on me, but i can remember a period of my life (end of secondary, in to college age erm, 16-18) when i hung about with a group of Christians just like the "villians" of the piece. Imagine the blonde Hilary Faye as a bloke and you have the image of my best friend at the time. I'm hoping he's "grown in his faith" since those days and now I'm getting off topic...

Anyway, I felt a little uncomfy, then I started giggling "Of course Jesus us white" was the first one and they kinda rolled on from there. Loved the moral of it, the whole "do as I do" kind of Samaritan theme and thought it got the point over in a really good way. I adored the film, my husband quite enjoyed it too.

We both really liked the line

"Why did God make us all so different if he wanted us all to be the same?"

Exacerly. Anyone who gets their knickers in a twist over this film needs to seriously question their Faith or their understanding of the film *L* It's not offensive in the least -it's insightful and a film I will certainly watch again

 

[amicus]

English Lady...I accept your thank you but I must say I did not expect it.

Usually in American films, Christianity is paid lip service by just about everyone. No one of stature is actually a regular church goer, or a believer in any way except for public consumption.

Among intellectuals and sophisticates, including the right and left, fundamental Christians are a quiet smirk of tolerance for the uneducated.

To me, a militant atheist, it was embarrassing to watch and listen to the young boys and girls express that brainwashed litany of belief, embarrassing and stirring up a little anger that such ignorance could exist in a modern society.

I do not say this to anger you, but I am truly opposed to your belief, with the same fervent passion I am opposed to socialists, because both rely upon faith instead of knowledge and belief instead of rational focused thoughts.

To me it is obscene to see people as they were in the 12th century, chanting prayers and carrying out the rituals of medieval Europe, in essence, I am ashamed that such things still exist.

Although you may not have seen it that way, 'Saved' was a cruel, but honest exposure of the corruption of morality within a Christian setting. That was the opininon of several reviewers from the links I posted and some others, they mutually agree that the sarcasm just went over the heads of most of the Christians who viewed and reviewed the film.

It is even more sad when people don't realize they have been insulted, which was basically my point in asking how they got away with it, I know how they did.


amicus...

 

[English Lady]

Amicus, by my handle you can tell I'm English, beleive you me I have a grasp of sarcasm.

I completely got that. The school setting, the arm waving, the all girl christian group with the closed eyes, arms raised to heaven thing going on and the call for the kids to renew their relationship with jesus etc etc.

I liked the bit where Hilary whats her face throws her bible at the girl "this is not a weapon" she says, very clever.

I am gathering that it's an exageration and a bit of a, whats the word, satire. Somewhere like that school shouldn't exsist. Shove a load of Christians in such an insular situation and you'd end up with something like the satire, I have no doubt about it. Keep us out in the real world and it keeps our feet on the ground.

I think it showed up the difference between religion and faith. The clone type reactions were all religion, following the words to the last letter and all very fake. Mary was all about real faith. it's not all written down in black and white, alot of it is belief.

Anyhow, Amicus. I'm an English Christian and therefore doubly able to laugh at myself. I am also pretty different from your average churchgoer (I'm here on lit, active and very open about my faith for a start and I write porn) so maybe thats why I'm not offended. I'm going to show the film to my mum, I think she'd enoy it too

And Amicus, if you ever need saved, you know where to come...I'll try and make sue I have all my equipment on me if the situation every arises, Praise Jesus!

 

[Recidiva]

English Lady...I accept your thank you but I must say I did not expect it.

Usually in American films, Christianity is paid lip service by just about everyone. No one of stature is actually a regular church goer, or a believer in any way except for public consumption.

Among intellectuals and sophisticates, including the right and left, fundamental Christians are a quiet smirk of tolerance for the uneducated.

To me, a militant atheist, it was embarrassing to watch and listen to the young boys and girls express that brainwashed litany of belief, embarrassing and stirring up a little anger that such ignorance could exist in a modern society.

I do not say this to anger you, but I am truly opposed to your belief, with the same fervent passion I am opposed to socialists, because both rely upon faith instead of knowledge and belief instead of rational focused thoughts.

To me it is obscene to see people as they were in the 12th century, chanting prayers and carrying out the rituals of medieval Europe, in essence, I am ashamed that such things still exist.

Although you may not have seen it that way, 'Saved' was a cruel, but honest exposure of the corruption of morality within a Christian setting. That was the opininon of several reviewers from the links I posted and some others, they mutually agree that the sarcasm just went over the heads of most of the Christians who viewed and reviewed the film.

It is even more sad when people don't realize they have been insulted, which was basically my point in asking how they got away with it, I know how they did.


amicus...

It has to do more with perspective and having a sense of humor.

I expected it to be "anti Christian" but I found it to be light on its feet and funny.

Ritual and prayer aren't in themselves bad, nor is faith. Ritual and tradition and prayer lend structure and reminders to people. When people use this structure and reminder to be a better person, it's a valuable tool in their daily arsenal against being a bad person. Taken to extremes, of course it's going to be extremist. But in themselves, ritual and repetition and faith and religion are tools. Just like fire, they can be put to good or destructive use.

The film managed to explore so many themes and deal with them with a sense of humor and humanity that made it not the least bit insulting. Not if you approached it with humor and humanity. Everyone got the same treatment, and allowed a chance at redemption, which some of them took, regardless of where they started at the beginning.

I'm afraid in this case it's a critic's fault who would see this as anti anything. It's a comedy and it's smart. Anyone taking offense at this would likely do so by adding on their own spin, but not seeing what was there to be seen, if they'd watch carefully. It sheds light on the actions of those who believe in something untested by reality, when it's convenient to them, and it analyzes the personal costs of rigid belief that doesn't change to address realities and diversity. It could just as easily have been in any other setting, where opinions change and meaning becomes deeper with the individual's involvement in choice and thought versus obedience and status.

 

[English Lady]

It has to do more with perspective and having a sense of humor.

I expected it to be "anti Christian" but I found it to be light on its feet and funny.

Ritual and prayer aren't in themselves bad, nor is faith. Ritual and tradition and prayer lend structure and reminders to people. When people use this structure and reminder to be a better person, it's a valuable tool in their daily arsenal against being a bad person. Taken to extremes, of course it's going to be extremist. But in themselves, ritual and repetition and faith and religion are tools. Just like fire, they can be put to good or destructive use.

The film managed to explore so many themes and deal with them with a sense of humor and humanity that made it not the least bit insulting. Not if you approached it with humor and humanity. Everyone got the same treatment, and allowed a chance at redemption, which some of them took, regardless of where they started at the beginning.

I'm afraid in this case it's a critic's fault who would see this as anti anything. It's a comedy and it's smart. Anyone taking offense at this would likely do so by adding on their own spin, but not seeing what was there to be seen, if they'd watch carefully. It sheds light on the actions of those who believe in something untested by reality, when it's convenient to them, and it analyzes the personal costs of rigid belief that doesn't change to address realities and diversity. It could just as easily have been in any other setting, where opinions change and meaning becomes deeper with the individual's involvement in choice and thought versus obedience and status.

Exactly, very, very, very well put.


Amicus -Forget my response, read this one twice *nods*