Click on CAPCon Alert image for explanation
Christian Analysis of American Culture (CAP Ministry)
Entertainment Media Analysis Report
A service to His little ones (which includes at-home teens) through you, their parents and grandparents, in His name by His Word
Give your visitors access to more than 800 CAP movie analyses while your page stays open. Put the link above on your web page. FREE! Test it! Click it!
Make your tax-deductible donations to the CAP Ministry through
Click here to see
UPDATED December 31, 2003
|US MAIL in US Dollars to
PO Box 177
Granbury, TX 76048-0177
Preferred. NO Service Charges.
|If either of the above two links have not worked properly for you, please try again. THANK YOU!!!|
|ALERT: To fully understand this report you should first visit the topics suggested by the CAP Site Map (Table of Contents). Further, if you do not want the plot, ending, or "secrets" of a movie spoiled for you, skip the Summary/Commentary. In any case, be sure to visit the Findings/Scoring section -- it is completely objective to His Word and is the heart of the CAP Entertainment Media Analysis Model applied to this movie.|
(2003), PG-13 -- ...and drove them all out of the church ... with a whip.
Cast/Crew Details Courtesy Internet Movie Database
Production (US): Touchstone Pictures
Distribution (US): Buena Vista Pictures
Director(s): Nigel Cole
Producer(s): Nick Barton, Steve Clark-Hall, Suzanne Mackie
Written by: Tim Firth, Juliette Towhidi
Cinematography/Camera: Oliver Curtis, Ashley Rowe
Music: Patrick Doyle
Film Editing: Michael Parker
Casting: Gail Stevens
Production Design: Martin Childs
Art Direction: Grant Armstrong, Mark Raggett
Viewed At: Driftwood Theater 6
There are many "religious" paintings of nudity. With the approval of the church. But God did not put them there. Nor did Jesus. Man did. Even the History Channel calls the Bible pornographic because of man's paintings exaggerating events and descriptions in the Bible. Even God's descriptions of sex in the Song of Solomon are for husband and wife. God even warned the priests, who wore robes which may open in the wind, to not climb the steps of the alter lest they expose their nudity to those congregated. [Ex. 20:26] There certainly were artists when the Bible was written but God did not inspire display of nudity into the Bible. Man, in serving himself, put it there.
God speaks of nakedness (display of nudity) darkly and with disapproval 47 times in the Bible from Genesis to Revelation. [**] That there are nudes in "holy art" put there by man does not change God's Word. If God condemns the display of nudity, how can it be excused in "art?" Answer: It can't. Art is not sin and sin is not art, but art becomes sin when art uses sin. As in Calendar Girls. Yes, I would call the display of David's nudity in the Galleria dell'Accademia sinful since God declares the display of nudity as sinful. Speaking of what people say about the sculpture of David, note the following quoted from a quick random selection from a simple search: "And even though every female (and surely some males) that enter the room to stare (and drool) over him know that he is, in fact, just a sculpture, they could be excused from reaching out a tentative finger, defying the heavy and angry Italian guards, just to make sure." [Source: coralcoast.com] Causing sexual lust is a typical result of the display of nudity for whatever reason.
In the top portion of the poster art is a woman who, behind the calendar, is nude. I have done what I can to reduce the allusions and implications of nudity such as how much of the model's breasts were revealed in the original without compromising the creativity and talents of the photographer. But she, in the upper portion of the poster, is a nameless, faceless nobody, forcing the observer to focus all attention on the fact that she is nude. That she is shown again in the lower portion center full-faced, identifiable in the upper portion only by the hat she wears in both portions, does not detract from the "statement" made by the upper portion regarding the "true value" of the woman. The photography is high quality and clever regarding its compatibility with the theme of the show, but the statement it makes is immoral. As are all the other dozens of like images, some much more brazen, in Calendar Girls.
In the hospital waiting room (the "Relatives Room" in England), Chris Harper (Helen Mirren) sits with Annie Clarke (Julie Walters) waiting for information from the doctor about her husband, John Clarke (John Alderton) who is dying of leukemia. John is a well-liked poet and friend to many. But as the two women squirm restlessly on the sofa with anticipation, they are impolitely poked by the well-worn sofa. Helen then makes a commitment for their WI (Women's Institutes), an organization established for the education and empowerment of women, to raise funds to buy the hospital a new sofa ... in John's name.
After a number of brain-storming bombers by members of WI, Helen notes a calendar in a repair shop with nude women in the top page of each month's two-page spread. A light bulb illuminates in Helen's conniving head and decides to initiate movement to make a calendar of their own. A nude calendar. Eventually, eleven of the WI women, all eleven over 50 years old, agree to pose nude. For John, of course. Helen is January. All eleven of them together for December. After all is said and done ... and photographed ... they not only buy the hospital a new sofa, they buy the hospital a new wing. Total sales on the calendar was claimed toward the end of the show to have been £587,000. Is that not the people calling evil (sin) good? [Isa. 5:20] Is that not a matter of a generation who think they are pure in using sin for good? [Prov. 30:12] Isn't this whole thing a matter of sinning in matters they do not understand? [2Pet. 2:12] Is this not submitting to sin because enough people embrace it? [Ps. 12:8]
Apparently this is a true story. Whether true or not, it is true that it is sinful to use evil (the sin of displaying nudity) to provide unjust gain. [Hab. 2:9] This film is replete with excuses to try to make the display of nudity for money, even if for a good cause, acceptable and even desirable. [Jude 4]. It is calling evil good and dark light. [Isa. 5:20 again]
"They dropped everything for a good cause." They committed sin for a "good cause." What is wrong with this picture? And they used a church for the picture taking, just like the money changers used the temple for evil doing. [John 2:13 - 15] I wonder if Jesus had walked in the church while the photo sessions were happening whether He would have approved ... or whether He would have overturned the cameras and props and drove them all out of the church ... with a whip. What do you think He would have done?
In addition to all the sexually immoral issues (including those other than nudity for display), this film presented a lot of drinking including teen drinking and drunkenness. While drinking in and of itself is not sinful, getting drunk is. And emboldening youth to try it because of the influence of drinking and drunkenness in films is sinful as well. [Eph. 5:18]
I did not write the "Rules", folks. I just share them with you. If you have a problem with the Rules, talk to the Author. He will give you a much better answer than I ever could. And if you decide you cannot embrace Christianity because of the Rules, you are walking away from Christianity rather than me driving you away by telling you of the Rules I didn't write.
If needed to focus or fortify, applicable text is underlined or bracketed [ ]. If you wish to have full context available, the Blue Letter Bible is a convenient source. If you use the Blue Letter Bible, a new window will open. Close it to return here or use "Window" in your browser's menu bar to alternate between the CAP page and the Blue Letter Bible page.
***Selected Scriptures of Armour against the influence of the entertainment industry***
As always, it is best to refer to the Findings/Scoring section -- the heart of the CAP analysis model -- for the most complete assessment possible of this movie.
Wanton Violence/Crime (W)
Sexual Immorality (S)
Offense to God (O)
Single Christian Network
Kids, Teens and Home Vertical Portal
|There are some in the entertainment industry who maintain that 1) violent programming is harmless because no studies exist that prove a connection between violent entertainment and aggressive behavior in children, and 2) young people know that television, movies, and video games are simply fantasy. Unfortunately, they are wrong on both accounts." And "Viewing violence may lead to real life violence." I applaud these associations for fortifying 1 Cor. 15:33. Read the rest of the story. From our more than eight years of study, I contend that other aberrant behaviors, attitudes, and expressions can be inserted in place of "violence" in that statement. Our Director - Child Psychology Support, a licensed psychologist and certified school psychologist concurs. For example, "Viewing arrogance against fair authority may lead to your kids defying you in real life." Or "Viewing sex may lead to sex in real life." Likewise and especially with impudence, hate and foul language. I further contend that any positive behavior can be inserted in place of "violence" with the same chance or likelihood of being a behavior template for the observer; of being incorporated into the behavior mechanics and/or coping skills of the observer. In choosing your entertainment, please consider carefully the "rest of the story" and our findings.|