SafeEyes: The Boundaries of Good Taste

One of my favourite media-related stories of my childhood stems from the summer of 1985.  The date is relevant.  Given that it was a quiet night and my family had nothing else to do, we decided to go to a movie.  The problem was finding a movie that we could all enjoy.  My parents were very careful with what movies they let us see and, with a seven year age difference between my sister and I (ages 15 and 8, respectively), that made choosing a flick somewhat of a challenge at times.  Nevertheless, when decision time came, my father opted to take my sister to Back to the Future.  However, because of the presence of bad language in BTTF, my mother decided instead to bring me to a safer choice - the latest Disney animated feature... The Black Cauldron.  

I love this story because, at least to me now, it seems absurd.  Why is this funny?  Because, in their efforts to keep me safe, they unwittingly brought me into what is widely known as one of the darkest Disney features of all time.  Seriously.  Instead of taking me into a film about a young man who unwittingly drives his car 30 years into the past, my parents brought me into a film about a dark wizard who seeks to create an army of undead warriors to conquer the world.  Black Cauldron was such an embarrassment to Disney's squeaky clean image at the time that they banned the film from video release until viewer demand in 1998 brought it to light for a limited time.  Just for a laugh, check out the theatrical trailer.  Experience the childlike wonder.  Lol.

Don't get me wrong.  I thoroughly applaud and appreciate my parents for seeking to make wise decisions in my viewing.  They didn't know what the film was about and were trying to keep their kid away from language that they didn't want them to repeat.  As a parent now, I feel like I understand that decision more and more each day.  Still, situations like this have always caused me to come back to one question:

What makes something inappropriate?

The question of content vs. context has been one that has weighed on my heart for years now.  I mean, how much swearing is too much?  Is it okay?  Does nudity have a place in film artistically?  What about violence?  I have often wondered this because, really, I believe that 'the Church' really oversimplifies the issue.  Because of our puritanical roots, we tend to deem a film 'okay' if it is without bad language or nudity.  (Let's face it, violence isn't really even on the radar in our culture... unless it's graphic or gory.)  I can count off numerous times when people have spoken to me about content in film and debated the appropriateness of content.  (Once, I even had one person tell me that Spiderman was pretty good... 'there was that one passionate kiss, but other than that...')  Although, is that really the issue?  No one argues over Michaelangelo's David as pornographic, even though his dangly bits are out for all to see.  Yet, in a film, it's an automatic NC-17 rating from the MPAA.  Although I'm not arguing for increased nudity in film, I'm merely trying to point out what might be considered to be a double standard.

At present, there is currently a debate about the content of The King's Speech, leading frontrunner at the Oscars this year.  (You can read about the controversy here and here.)  In an effort to make the film more 'family friendly', the studio has opted to rerelease it without some of the language present.  Apparently, the majority of the language takes place in one scene where the King's language coach attempts to get him to curse.  As a result, the film received an 'R' rating from the MPAA.   As I write this, I haven't seen the film so it is difficult for me to comment directly about it.  However, I am curious as to whether or not this is necessary.  Does context count for nothing?  (Interestingly enough, I have had several people from our church congregation talk to me about the scene--including family members--who have said that the use of language in this setting 'didn't bother them'.)

There is no question that we must be concerned about our media intake.  Scripture demands critical hearts.  Philippians 4:8 invites us to think about things that are 'noble' and 'praiseworthy'... but are the lines drawn so clearly at content?  I do not believe that this is the case.  Themes and worldview are also worthy of note in our discussions as well and, I believe, can trump content in the right context.  Certainly, there are instances where films produce absolute garbage in terms of content and context--and I'm not calling for the embrace of everything and the removal of personal boundaries.  Such talk would be foolish.  Yet, I do hope to maybe challenge the way many people view this issue.  I expect that this will be a topic that is recurring over my next few postings (outside of reviews) as I attempt to explore this issue.  I would like to address issue such as the nature of pornography and where do boundaries come into play.  I'm no expert.  Just a guy asking questions.

Still, let's see where this goes.

The Social Network

Starring Jessie Eisenberg, Andrew Garfield, Justin Timberlake

Directed by David Fincher                                                        By Steve Norton

Rated PG-13 for sexuality and drug use                                    Rating: **** (out of 5)

Available on Blu-ray and DVD           

            Every movie speaks to a certain moment in time.  It really is inescapable. Every film speaks to the values and social issues of its culture and, as such, presents us with an opportunity for cultural study.  However, some films do more than that.  Some films offer timely windows that people years from now will be able to use to gain a better understanding of our culture.  They capture a ‘moment-in-time’.

            The Social Network is such a film.

            Don’t get me wrong.  I’m not claiming that it’s the greatest film of all time or anything.  I think it’s great—but not the best movie I’ve ever seen.  Rather, I do believe that The Social Network offers a clear portrait of the values and issues being addressed by this generation… and that makes it an important film.

            Penned by Aaron Sorkin (The West Wing), The Social Network follows the story of Mark Zuckerberg (Jessie Eisenberg), a student at Harvard University.  Zuckerberg is a man who craves connection—his ultimate goal is to join a fraternity—yet exists outside the popularity circle.  So, partnering with his best friend Eduardo Savarin (Andrew Garfield), Zuckerberg develop a website designed to connect Harvard students in a way that they haven’t before online.  In his own words, Zuckerberg’s endgame is to build a site that ‘takes the college experience and puts it on the internet’.   As a result, ‘Facebook’ is born.  As the site grows in popularity, Zuckerberg finds himself battling everything from copyright infringement laws to lawsuits from his (now former) friends.

Although initially written off by the press as ‘the Facebook movie’, The Social Network, has demonstrated it’s own social importance.  Directed by David Fincher, this film has shone a light firmly on the challenges of this hyper-connected generation of youth (which, ironically, is something that Fincher swears he never meant to do).   As such, for our purposes, there is as much to grapple with theologically as there is culturally.  For instance, one of the primary themes within the film is the quest for personal wholeness in today’s society.  Throughout the film, this issue is best demonstrated through Mark Zuckerberg’s personal journey.  Without question, Eisenberg’s portrayal of Zuckerberg is complex to say the least, conspiring against his friends at one moment while appearing naïve and broken the next.  We are reminded several times that ‘Mark doesn’t care about money’ yet he fights tirelessly for his site to conquer the world.  It’s an interesting contrast because, even as Facebook rises in power, Zuckerberg has difficulty truly reveling in the moment.  In a fashion similar to Citizen Kane, it’s as if the success Zuckerberg craves so badly is merely a feeble attempt to fill the gaping hole within him.  Despite being at the centre of the social universe, Zuckerberg seems to cling to the memory of his ex-girlfriend and yearns for love.  (Although, at the same time, one could also make the argument that his continued interest in her stems from the fact that she is the one who rejects him—and Mark likes things to happen on his terms.)  Either way, The Social Network portrays Zuckerberg as a man who seeks to build an empire—to ‘do something exceptional’—yet lacks a sense of completion.  Just like his description of Facebook, Mark will ‘never be done’.  The relevance of this issue cannot be ignored as we, as a culture, continue to search for the answer of what it means to be whole.  Insatiated with ourselves, we work to earn the right to experience fullness and grace but to no avail.  Instead, only through an active relationship with Christ can we ever begin to understand what it means to experience holistic rest and true shalom. 

In addition, The Social Network also speaks to the reality of the ‘new community’. Whether one is ready to admit it or not, relational connections have changed as a result of the internet and, more specifically, Facebook.  In The Social Network, Zuckerberg’s dream is to create the opportunity for people to engage one another socially—even personally—at all times.  In doing so, he creates a space for people to vent the gambit of their emotions, all the while feeling completely safe and secure in themselves.  Nevertheless, The Social Network is also very honest about the possible realities that such a shift encompasses.  Zuckerberg blogs about his ex-girlfriend online and faces the consequences for it.  Eduardo fails to change the relationship status on his Facebook page and must try explain why to his girlfriend.  Ironically, it’s here that The Social Network really speaks to the Church at large.  As Christians, we must be aware of this changing relational landscape and be prepared to engage our world through its lenses.  The social realm of the internet in many ways is the new “ends of the Earth” into which Jesus commanded the disciples to speak.  Still, however, the Church seems slow at times to address and reassess its understanding and practice of modern day Kingdom relationships.  The ‘new community’ is a changing reality and the Church needs to rethink how to bring holistic Gospel life into the world as it stands.

            By following the journey of Mark Zuckerberg, The Social Network challenges us to reimagine our world and its understanding of the ‘new community’.  Will people remember the film in 10 or 15 years?  Maybe.  Maybe not.  Still, for this moment in time, David Fincher has offered us insight into the broken nature of the hyper-connected generation.