1A Kent Ridge Road Singapore 119224
The KE7 VCF is made up of a bunch of dedicated Christians eager to place the Lord first in all that we do.
"For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Jesus Christ." Romans 3:17 (NIV)
Archives
July 2005
August 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
July 2006
Links
CG Sources
Christianity Today
Christian Apologetics & Research
RBC Resources
Utmost For His Highest Devotional
Music For Your Ears
Tagboard
| Powered by TagBoard Message Board |
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
They say that kissing involves tongue excerise...but excuse me, I was being impertinent.
Interesting that the more 'mature' one (i.e. the model) got a 'less demanding(?)' scene. The guy just stroked her hair while the 'innocent' little doe was instructed to do 'heavy duty'. So much for lost innocence...I guess the filmmakers were trying to make a pretty big statement, a very big splash: It is more erotic to see a young girl lose her innocence. The director and the scriptwriter are not dumb, they know what people want, and how to deliver.
The industry players know what the consumer wants and gives to them. Media thus becomes a reflection of society in this sense. The challenge really, is that when we stand up, we are standing up to a consumer society who pays the director for his work. Little chance that the director will be impressed. He can always say, " Who's paying?" It's not about the money, but about the power money gives. The consumer now can demand 'professionalism' from the actress i.e. that she submits to the will of the director, who actually submits to the taste of society.
Standing up for Christ (not Christian Ethics by the way) involves challenges the darkness, and the double faced deceit of society. It is not easy. We maybe sucked into that very web of deciet that we so try to defeat with our criticism. For different people, it's not a matter of speaking up and out, but submission may be the lesser of two evils for many reasons. For instance, the 15 year old girl, it is probably from the fear of offending her superiors and getting scolded, but for the 21-22 ish girl, it is a different story.
Her's is the story of fragmentation. Self-image is cleary important to her (she is after all a model). Consumer perception is the reality to her. Her professional image must be crafted, she is a commodity. It is crude but true, her actions in her working life determine her continued employment in that area. In modelling, the base assumption is the commodification of the human body, it is a marketable product. Therefore, she is split down in two: One, the model-her professional image, the second, the real her who enjoys the fruit of her labour.
Those of us who criticize her do so because we see no split between the professional life and the real us. But in her line of work, such a split is required of her. She must do so. One part of her submits to consumer wants, the other is part of that whole system. For us, what we do in our workplaces reflects on our inner self. But maybe for her, this does not follow, she may as well think," Who I am in my working capacity does not necessarily reflect the way I am in day to day social intercouse." So don't think that any guy can just stroke her hair even though she allows it on the film set.
The true center of our critique actually lies in this question: Should films, theatere, dance, modelling and any sort of performing arts be erotic? We live in a non-christian world, even if we qualify our 'yes' with 'God made sexuality good', the world need not qualify their 'yes'. And so the inevitable clash. If we feel that we need to enter the arts, we must be prepared to submit under such people, otherwise we should not even be in that line of work.
Modern media is erotic only because modern society is first deeply eroticized. We, who have tasted the glimpse of heaven, are in tension with society. But yet we are also part of it. No easy answers here: Some will say that Christians should not do performing arts, some prefer a sanitized performing arts, and finally some will plunge head on into it. Romans 14 comes into play here...
Interesting that the more 'mature' one (i.e. the model) got a 'less demanding(?)' scene. The guy just stroked her hair while the 'innocent' little doe was instructed to do 'heavy duty'. So much for lost innocence...I guess the filmmakers were trying to make a pretty big statement, a very big splash: It is more erotic to see a young girl lose her innocence. The director and the scriptwriter are not dumb, they know what people want, and how to deliver.
The industry players know what the consumer wants and gives to them. Media thus becomes a reflection of society in this sense. The challenge really, is that when we stand up, we are standing up to a consumer society who pays the director for his work. Little chance that the director will be impressed. He can always say, " Who's paying?" It's not about the money, but about the power money gives. The consumer now can demand 'professionalism' from the actress i.e. that she submits to the will of the director, who actually submits to the taste of society.
Standing up for Christ (not Christian Ethics by the way) involves challenges the darkness, and the double faced deceit of society. It is not easy. We maybe sucked into that very web of deciet that we so try to defeat with our criticism. For different people, it's not a matter of speaking up and out, but submission may be the lesser of two evils for many reasons. For instance, the 15 year old girl, it is probably from the fear of offending her superiors and getting scolded, but for the 21-22 ish girl, it is a different story.
Her's is the story of fragmentation. Self-image is cleary important to her (she is after all a model). Consumer perception is the reality to her. Her professional image must be crafted, she is a commodity. It is crude but true, her actions in her working life determine her continued employment in that area. In modelling, the base assumption is the commodification of the human body, it is a marketable product. Therefore, she is split down in two: One, the model-her professional image, the second, the real her who enjoys the fruit of her labour.
Those of us who criticize her do so because we see no split between the professional life and the real us. But in her line of work, such a split is required of her. She must do so. One part of her submits to consumer wants, the other is part of that whole system. For us, what we do in our workplaces reflects on our inner self. But maybe for her, this does not follow, she may as well think," Who I am in my working capacity does not necessarily reflect the way I am in day to day social intercouse." So don't think that any guy can just stroke her hair even though she allows it on the film set.
The true center of our critique actually lies in this question: Should films, theatere, dance, modelling and any sort of performing arts be erotic? We live in a non-christian world, even if we qualify our 'yes' with 'God made sexuality good', the world need not qualify their 'yes'. And so the inevitable clash. If we feel that we need to enter the arts, we must be prepared to submit under such people, otherwise we should not even be in that line of work.
Modern media is erotic only because modern society is first deeply eroticized. We, who have tasted the glimpse of heaven, are in tension with society. But yet we are also part of it. No easy answers here: Some will say that Christians should not do performing arts, some prefer a sanitized performing arts, and finally some will plunge head on into it. Romans 14 comes into play here...
U-Liang at 8:27 PM