Hollywoods Attack On Religion :: essays research papers

Hollywoods Attack on ReligionThe section that I have chosen 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, fromacceptable to contemptible. He takes a look at the messages being sent in films,music and television in the last 15 to 20 years and analyzes their effects. Ingeneral, Hollywood depicts religion in an unfavorable manner, according toMedved. Moreover, Medved also argues that, not only has Hollywood taken ahostile stance toward religion, but it has paid the price, literally, for doingso. All of Medveds arguments are well back up and documented, making 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 protest whic h took place on August 11, 1988,in opposition to the release of the motion picture The Last Temptation of Christ.MCA/Universal, which funded the Martin Scorsese film, called the protesters a"know-nothing wacky pack" (38). How forever, as Medved points out, the protest was"the largest protest ever mounted against the release of a motion picture" (37)and included much(prenominal) groups as the National Council of Catholic Bishops, theSouthern Baptist Convention, twenty members of the U.S. House of Representativesand prominent figures such as Mother Teresa of Calcutta and Ken Wales, formervice president at Disney studios. Even with such strong opposition from theserespected groups and people, the studio refused to listen and stood fanny itsFirst Amendment rights.MCA/Universal was even supported by the Motion Picture Association ofAmerica, which stated that "The . . . MPAA support MCA/Universal in its absoluteright to passing to the people whatever movie it choose s" (41). However, Medvedrebukes this statement, arguing that "absolute right" wasnt the issue theissue "concerned the movie 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 nymphomaniacal" (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 past experiences when movies were edited so as tonot offend animal rights activists, gay protagonism groups, and ethnic