...the use of music, lighting, and such in movies and other video entertainment, I've been asked. My answer; in itself, nothing. However, there is often a fine line between legitimate special effects and manipulating the viewer.
To understand it better, turn off your TV for a month and then see what you think of video entertainment. Your wife may approve.
The Babylon Bee Has Apparently Taken Over Democrat Messaging
-
They can’t overturn Roe again, but the Democrats don’t think their audience
knows any better: I’m surprised the trooper wasn’t wearing a Darth Vader
helmet...
3 hours ago
9 comments:
what does "manipulating the viewer" mean?
That's where the "fine line" comes in. Any cinematic tool, to be sure, is used with the viewer's response in mind. I tend to draw that line when I think the viewer is being forced, not led, to the emotional/intellectual response.
One example is the sound track to "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein." It tried to coerce the response, not lead it. Another (tangential) example is when theaters used to vent their popcorn machines into the theater to promote sales.
In a nutshell, it's when the music and special effects get heavy-handed. In my (probably not humble enough) opinion, those who spend a lot of time in front of the TV get used to this manipulation.
Does that make sense?
.....hmmmm.....well, i'm understanding more, but it's a bit of an arbitrarily drawn line. in your example, i could certainly see there being a problem when that persuasion leads you to spend money that you didn't plan on spending (also visible in the old 'subliminal messaging' that theaters allegely would employ to increase concession sales).
however, there must be a place for simply using the tools available to make a point. in essence, everything is trying to 'make a point', and i'm afraid i can't see the use of music, lighting, and other effects as being invalid brushstrokes with which to paint a picture. i think, without too much work, a case could be made for using things other than 'pure factual discourse' (which i'm sure neither of us would disagree is completely valid) to convey a meaning...
consider the OT narratives, in which the hebrew writers employed (albeit smaller) brushstrokes which were not strictly 'vital' to the warp and weft of the story, but which were nonetheless included to inform the reader 'how to respond' to these certain stories.
(i'm getting all of that regarding OT narrative from my class in hermeneutics at RTS-Orlando with Richard Pratt....we can certainly discuss further, but i thought it might help if you knew where i was coming from. If you have a particular issue with RTS-O, then we're obviously going to be going at things from a bit of a different viewpoint. however, if we agree on the validity of sources, that might help the discussion a bit.)
No quibble with the idea that music, lighting, and such can enhance things. The Temple was furnished for this, and great works of theater make full use of this.
That said, the line between "use" and "abuse" is not that fine, is it? We know that the man who has ten cups of coffee (or liquor) in a day is abusing that, right?
We can do the same thing for film. Again, if you partake, step away for a while, and I think you'll understand better.
hmm...again, i'm understanding what you're saying a bit more...
now the question is: how much weight can you really attribute to this? i mean, this is certainly not scriptural, and even extrapolating i'm having a tough time seeing how this is much more than just personal preference: as in, what you and your family may (or may not, in this case) be comfortable with might not be what suits me; we can each affirm each others desire to be sensitive to our families (i'm getting married in 3.5 months, btw), while at the same time shrugging our shoulders and saying: "hey...this isnt' authoritative...if some other christian doesn't agree, that's totally cool"
I'd seen that when I visited your site--congratulations and best wishes.
And yes, I can agree 100% that what I'm arguing isn't a clear imperative of Scripture. It's just yet another reason to be very careful about what we put before our eyes.
Again, I "double dog dare" you to take the challenge for a while if you're a TV/movie watcher; take some time off and see what you think when you come back.
well....i don't watch tv, actually; i've got 3 other roommates, and they watch a lot; i'm almost pissed that i've got to pay for cable that i'm not using (except for internet, but not all of them pay for that, because they don't use it...you figure THAT one out) i'll watch a movie now and then, but that's dropping off; in fact, last movie i watched was disney's "robin hood" a week or so ago...and i've watched about 10 old 'looney tunes' videos this past week on my ipod. love 'em.
i read a lot....and i'm engaged, so stuff related to that takes a lot of time.
now i need to figure out which washer/dryer to buy...and which bed.
"It almost makes me wonder if these cases are an example to us--artists or no--about what happens when we try to use the world's ways and the world's resources to try and do God's work. It seems that when we try to use the world, the world just as inevitably uses us."
well....perhaps i still dont' quite 'get it'.
how, exactly, based on your previous comment (quoted above), are you *not* making a case that using these things are unbiblical, in that they are "tools of the world" (and, by inference, of the devil).
...'cause, that sounds a bit 'retreatist' to me....sort of a "avoid anything that is dirty" instead of what i'd refer to as a redemptive/missional outlook on participating in redemption (which i would encourage, and use as a lens though which to look at an individual christian's role in the movie/entertainment business: are you using this to proclaim the kingdom, and to seek, in some small way, the redemption of the cosmos?).
now...if you and i see the future of the world differently, if we've got a substantially different view of eschatology, then things are just going to inevitably be confusing here, and we're going to have to end up disagreeing on this, because we disagree on more foundational (though still not absolutely 100% crystal-clear, biblically defensible, watertight) views...
You're missing the point; I'm not arguing that it's worldly, or unBiblical--though certainly a lot of shows are for other reasons. I'm arguing that emotions are being manipulated excessively.
Post a Comment