Worldview in pop culture, #1: The New
Normal
Two gay guys who want a baby, a single
mom with not much left who will become the surrogate mother for them,
her daughter, who typifies today's youth culture , and her
grandmother, who is incredibly snarky, ego-centric, and spiteful.
They all come together in their own ways to create a family. They
come from different places, backgrounds and beliefs, but if we are to
believe what NBC wants us to believe, this is now a normal family. It
may not be traditional, but hey, if they love each other, why not,
right?
If you don't know, NBC is slated to
release its brand new comedy, The New Normal, on September 11.
Ignoring, for the moment, the implications of releasing a new comedy
on 9-11, I turn to the implications of the title and the characters,
and I ask the double-rainbow question: “What does it mean?” What
does it mean that the title of this show is, “The New
Normal?” What is the underlying worldview? Is there a worldview?
Before I examine these questions, let's pause for a moment and look
at the show itself.
If you have
watched any of the previews, you may have noticed the show quickly
lays down the “Nana” as “intolerant,” the mom as desperate,
the daughter as a stereotypical youth, and the gay men as happy,
normal, and deeply in love. Perhaps what strikes me the most about
this show is not the normality with which homosexuality is portrayed,
but the absurd and painful lengths it goes to to portray Nana as a
horrible, mean person. Every one of her lines is coated in racism,
bigotry, and general spitefulness, and is delivered with a callous
sneer. It's so bad that she is actually unbelievable as a character.
And while she is the picture of hate on the show, I actually find
myself to be offended. The show seems to carry with it the
connotation that if you don't sanction a certain lifestyle, you are
no better than Nana. Now, I am a Christian. I'll say that out loud.
My position on this is pretty clear. And while I don't approve of
homosexuality, and I don't think that it is normal or good, but I am
not racist or hateful to homosexuals themselves. I find it a bit
offensive that the only person on the show who doesn't sanction
homosexuality is portrayed in such a manner. But it would be
inappropriate for me to say such a thing in the public square for
risk of being “intolerant.”
So what does this have to do with
worldview? Well, despite some people's attempts to say otherwise, no
information is neutral. It comes with a worldview-a notion of how
everything in the world works, what is real, what is good, etc. The
world view of “The New Normal?”
Normality. As the title suggests, it is fairly obvious that this show
is communicating an idea. You can't have a new normal with out an old
one. And that idea is that homosexuality is, or should be considered,
normal. The idea is that traditional ideas of family can be put
aside in favor of more “progressive” ideas. The idea is that as
long as we love each other, we are a family. And if you don't comply
to this new normal you are obviously backward in your thinking.
What do you think?
What kind of worldview is this? Is this a family? Is homosexuality
normal? How do we think about this? These are questions you will have
to answer for yourself. As you watch TV, listen to music, read
magazines, just remember:
Everything comes
with a worldview, and
“Ideas have
consequences.”
-Summit Ministries
~Steven
Hamilton
Worldview in pop culture, #2: The
Redemption of Cain
Will Smith, directing and starring in
a new movie with a Biblical plot, the story of Cain and Abel,
vampires...wait, what? Did you just say vampires? I mean, the rest of
that stuff was pretty ordinary, but vampires? Well, I'm afraid so. It
turns out that (according to the internet, source of all knowledge)
Will Smith is set to release a new movie, The Redemption of Cain,
sometime in the next few years. Perhaps 2010, perhaps 2015. Either
way, sources are unanimously certain that this retelling of the Cain
and Abel story will have a vampiric element. How will vampires fit
into this Biblical narrative? No one is really sure. Why on earth
would anyone want to
fit vampires into this Biblical narrative? No one seems to care.
Okay, I'll admit
that this post is not really about Will Smith's new movie, it's more
about vampires in general, and their place in pop culture. Every time
I hear about a new vampire book, movie, or TV show, I cast my gaze
upon heaven with a questioning look on my face and say, “Why?”
Why are vampires so popular? Why do people actually read these books
and watch these movies, spreading this idea like an infection? Are we
being punished? The answers do not come easily. However, it seems
that the vampire mythos has a strong grip in pop culture, especially
over young people.
(break)
The
idea of vampires has existed in mythology for quite a while. It
became most popular in the 18th
century, which saw people accused of vampiry (?) and stakes driven
through hearts. How and/or why vampires came to be associated with
weaknesses to sunlight, garlic, and the figure of the cross, the
world may never know. Recently though, vampire mythos saw a rebirth
of popularity with the release of “Twilight” by Stephenie Meyer.
This is worth some note. It should be noted that Stephenie Meyer is a
Mormon. Mormonism came about when Joseph Smith was visited in a dream
by an angel (or God Himself, depending on where you heard it from)
and told that all Christians had it wrong. He was supposedly given
prophetic revelation and wrote it all down in the book of Mormon. I
am reminded of Galatians 1:8, which says “But even
if we or an
angel from heaven
should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let
them be under God’s curse!” Anyway, the interesting thing is that
Twilight also came about by a dream. Stephenie Meyer (who is a
Mormon, remember) had a vision in a dream about two young people in a
forest clearing, arguing. They were talking about being madly in love
with each other; the one, a boy, was having a difficult time
resisting to drink the blood of the other, a girl. From this vision,
Meyer sketched out a chapter, later writing the book around it. I
cannot explain why it became so popular with young girls in America.
I cannot explain how mixing vampires with romance could ever become
popular at all. The idea of being in love with a vampire or a
warewolf is an idea that I cannot wrap my head around. Thankfully.
But
ever since Twilight, vampires have invaded many forms of media and
entertainment, spreading popularity and box-office dollars wherever
they go. Perhaps the most recent example is Abraham
Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. It is
my sincere hope that no one will confuse this work of historical
fiction for actual history. Although I am sure that some will be
confused.
Let's just get the facts straight: vampire bats
exist, and drink the blood of other animals to live. Vampires,
basically humans who are immortal, pale, and drink the blood of other
humans, remain mythological creatures. So what does this have to do
with worldviews? How do we think about this? Is it bad? Okay? Good? I
don't have the answers to all of these questions, but I can tell you
that the cover of the first Twilight book contains the image of an
apple, which Meyer admits is a picture of the “forbidden fruit”
from the garden of Eden. I can also tell you that if I ever have a
teenage daughter, I pray that she will choose better quality fiction
to read.
Worldview in pop culture #3: Batman,
Part 1:
In the midst of a dark Gotham night, a
shot rings out. And then another. Events have begun to unfold that
will change the fate of this fictional city forever. On that night,
the fate of one man would become tied to a sense of justice. The
death of his parents would haunt him for years. His name: Bruce
Wayne. But you probably know him better as Batman.
Batman became a part of popular culture
in 1939 with the release of the first Batman comic book. He has since
existed as one of the most popular DC comic figures, having several
full-length movies to his name, numerous graphic novels, and one
campy 60's show. The Caped Crusader, The World's best detective, or
the Dark Knight, as dark as he may be, has always stood as a beacon
of justice in a city of crime, Gotham. His sense of justice and his
refusal to take life are perhaps his two most defining
characteristics. His most recent surge of popularity came from the
trilogy of movies directed by Christopher Nolan. Batman Begins,
The Dark Knight, and The
Dark Knight Rises have redefined
the legend by adding an incredible amount of realism and dark themes.
The new movies are far removed from the earlier incarnations of
Batman in that 60's show (pun highly intended). But these movies come
with much more than awesome, stellar, and excellent plot lines,
explosions, graphics, cinematography, and acting. They come with a
worldview.
Batman Begins is,
in short, the story of how Bruce Wayne became Batman. It is natural
to think that a boy who watched his parents be shot in cold blood by
a criminal would develop a hunger for justice. But as Bruce grew up,
he was haunted by a sense of responsibility for his parents' deaths,
and a fear of bats. But he overcame that fear, and actually became
it. He became Batman. He became an idea. The theme of overcoming
fears was definitely among Nolan's target themes for the movie. But
another theme that sticks from the movie is that of justice with
compassion. When Batman completes his training, he is told that he is
ready to lead the League of Assassins, but first he must demonstrate
his dedication to justice by executing a farmer who is accused of
murder. Batman refuses. What comes next is best roughly quoted:
Ras: “Your
compassion is a weakness your enemies will not share.”
Wayne: “Exactly.
That's what separates us from them.”
Batman's
devotion to justice is just as strong as his devotion to life. And
while he fights criminals in a way that no one else can, ruthlessly,
directly, ignoring the bureaucracy of proper police work, (and as
Batman, for pete's sake), he still believes in the idea of a fair
trial. While fighting monsters, he does not become a monster himself.
This theme is expounded upon even further in The Dark
Knight, when Batman even refuses
to kill the Joker himself. (The Dark Knight also
contains a fabulous scene with two boats, in which the passengers of
both refuse to kill the others.)
How
great an idea is this, that Batman, master of disguise, theatrics,
and face-kicking ninja martial arts, is also a defender of life. He
stands for what is right, never wavering from his convictions. He
does whatever is necessary to fight crime, and defends the entire
city of Gotham from destruction at the hands of Ras. In The
Dark Knight, he goes so far as
to assume the identity of a criminal himself so as to protect the
legacy of Harvey Dent. In Batman, Nolan has made a hero that you can
root for, not because he is perfect, but because he fights for what
is right. That is an idea that I can get behind.
~Steven
Hamilton
Worldview in pop culture #4: Batman
part 2
A city in ruin. An angry hoard of the
oppressed routing out and destroying the rich upper class, making
them wonder how they could live so high and leave so little for the
rest One man standing above them, rallying them to himself. The end
of Batman? You'll have to watch the movie.
In Christopher Nolan's epic conclusion
to his Batman trilogy, Batman is pitted against Bane in a motion
picture that has received praise for being nothing short of amazing.
I must make a disclaimer here, because I actually haven't seen the
movie yet. You may ask how I can comment on a movie I haven't seen.
Well, I comment not so much on the movie, but the worldview there
within. From the reviews I have read and the trailers I have seen,
this movie contains some strong themes that have sparked equally
strong debates. Namely that of Capitalism and Communism.
When Karl Marx called on the workers of
the world to unite, he told them that they had “...nothing to loose
but [their] chains.” Bane seem to give the oppressed of Gotham a
similar charge. Unfortunately for Russian, Marx wasn't exactly right.
The workers also found that they lost their freedom trying to gain
it. Many of them lost their very lives. Most conservative estimates
place the toll of deaths at the hands of Communist regimes in the
hundreds of thousand, if not millions, in the 20th
century. It seems, on the outside, that the socialist or communist
way of doing things wouldn't lead to such horrific death tolls. In
principle at least, (but no further), Marxist Communism has a few
interesting points. After all, the sharing of wealth and labor should
work out, right. Wrong. Communism cannot satisfy the needs of the
common man because of three reasons.
#1: The nature of man.
Communism wrongly assumes that the
heart of man is good and can be trusted. Communism is founded upon
atheism, and totally rejects the fallen nature of man. Thus,
Communism holds that there is really nothing wrong with man that
can't be fixed by the state. The idea behind intellectual Communism
is that eventually, the state will not be needed. It can bring about
utopia by getting everyone to agree on peace and love. However, in
practice, communistic regimes never relinquish their power, and they
brutally murder anyone who disagrees. The problem with this
assumption is also found in the fact that when half of the people
realize that they are not receiving the rewards for their work, and
half of the people realize they can receive the rewards without
working, none of the people will actually want to work. This
willingness to work is essential to ideological Communism.
#2: Economics.
Socialism, the economic force of
Communism, is a failed system. This is best illustrated by the fable
about the communist who was bragging to an American by showing him a
massive storehouse that appeared to be filed with massive tubes,
ranging all the way to the ceiling, with diameters of about 4 ft.
This was, as I remember, in the 80's. (I could be off by a decade or
so). When the American asked what the tubes were, the Communist
replied proudly, “hula-hoops.” You see, when the government
decides what is to be produced and how it is to be produced, you end
up with a bunch of stuff that the public doesn't want. In order for
the market to work, those who provide goods and services must provide
the kind of goods and services that the public wants, at a price that
the consumers can afford, or fail. It sounds brutal and mean, but it
is the only way to guarantee the survival of a healthy economy and
society, which in the end will actually benefit everyone, not just
the upper class as most Marxists would have you to believe.
#3: Tyranny.
Communism has been shown to always
result in tyranny. This idea is closely related to #1, but with the
added connotation that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts
absolutely. (That should be in quotations, but I'm not entirely sure
who said it. George Washington is usually credited.) Every time a
Communist nation has been attempted, the result has been the loss of
thousands of lives at the hands of their corrupt leaders (Don't
believe me? Search “Gulag Archipelago”). If you think that Hitler
killed a lot of people, research Stalin. Or worse yet, Mao. Instead
of placing the power in the equally divided hands of the people,
Communism places it directly in the hands of too few men.
Alright, so this one wasn't exactly
about Batman. It was more about Communism. I happen to think that
Capitalism, while flawed, is a much better economics system, and that
a representative republic is a superior government philosophy. Why?
Posts to follow.
~Steven Hamilton
Worldview in pop culture: update
Just the other day, I saw a man wearing
a light blue shirt emblazoned with “Legalize Love.” The “o”
in “love” had been replaced by Obama’s personal insignia. I was
only this close to asking him, “Isn’t love already legal?” I
was probably wise to hold my tongue.
In my post concerning “The New
Normal,” I posed a few questions about homosexuality. Is it right?
How should we approach it? My personal stance is the Biblical stance.
As Christians, we are called to love people as Christ loved them.
Loving people, however, does not mean sanctioning sin. Loving people
means calling them out of sin and towards the glorious light of the
gospel. Loving people means praying for the salvation of their souls.
And yet, somehow, there are folks out
there who don’t think that love is legal. Somehow in the confusion
of the homosexuality debate, people have gotten in their minds that
love needs to be legalized. But the issue is not the legalization of
love. The issue is the same as it is in “The New Normal.” Gays
and gay supporters do not really care about legalization, because
there are no laws against being gay. They care about Normalization.
And this is just the latest attempt to normalize something that is
not normal.
No comments:
Post a Comment