Click on CAPCon Alert
image for explanation
A service to parents and grandparents
MAR21029
Josie and the Pussycats (2001), (PG-13)
CAP Score: 49
CAP Influence Density: 1.02
Click on CAPCon Alert image for explanation |
A service to parents and grandparents MAR21029 Josie and the Pussycats (2001), (PG-13) CAP Score: 49 CAP Influence Density: 1.02 |
|
   Comments?  Christian Media News   A Singles Christian Network  Your One Stop  For Everything Christian Free Email Ministry  Subscribe Today!!  |
 Christian Banner eXchange For FREE text-only versions of our media analysis reports as they are calculated, open this email then click "send." If your browser does not handle this URL format properly, send us a request to add you. NOTE: 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 purely objective and is the heart of the CAP Entertainment Media Analysis Model applied to this movie.  SUMMARY / COMMENTARY:
Josie and the Pussycats (PG-13) -- a ton of "lesser" ignominy. Yes, this shaper for preteens was R-13 because of a plethora of potty mouth and clothing mom and many dress codes would not likely permit. *Josie and the Pussycats* is another movie which uses the apparently new technique of stuffing movies full of "lesser" issues of impropriety to get the same "fix" or "rush" of filth as in R-rated films but garnering a lesser rating. Consider the ignominious behaviors and imagery in a set called A as worth 10 bads each, but the rather bold behaviors and imagery in set B as worth 100 bads each. Some movies (such as PG-13 movies) seem to stuff their content with a ton of "lesser" ignominy from set A, e.g., use 100 examples while R-rated movies use bold programming from set B but present only 10 examples of them. This yields the same magnitude of influence, namely: A (PG-13): (100 examples) x (10 bads each) = 1000 bad examples B (R): (10 examples) x (100 bads each) = 1000 bad examples *Josie and the Pussycats* used a ton of the set A "lesser" bads giving it an equivalent effect of an R-rated movie. There are actually two subplots to this flick. One plot being of the teen girl band, "The Pussycats" getting their big break into fame, and one of commercial gain via subliminal messaging to control a population (teens). Well? An Oriental nation did it many moons ago! They controlled the dissidents by dictating what music the population could listen to and make! And subliminal messaging in movies was tried (and outlawed) in America in the 50s to increase concession sales but with disputed effectiveness! Why not in the modern teen world? What a staggering thought! Maybe we could control toddlers and babies in the same way! And senior citizens? Mom and dad!? Schools? Government? THE WORLD!? Ya-a-a-a, ha, ha, ha, ha!!! Josie McCoy (Rachel Leigh Cook), Melody Valentine (Tara Reid) and Valerie Brown (Rosario Dawson) are the Pussycats. They have been playing at small gigs such as at bowling alleys for some time and have not developed a "following." That is Josie's focus -- to develop a following just like the commercially and economically engineered boy band named Band Du Jour. Aha! There is a *reason* the Band Du Jour is so popular. Their producers, Wyatt Frame (Alan Cumming - *Spy Kids* After an attempted murder of the Du Jour band by Frame and desperate for a new "sensation", Frame latched onto the Pussycats without even hearing them play or sing one note. Dragging them off to the world of tinsel, bright lights and free luxurious motels, Valerie and Melody started to notice how Josie was becoming bitter, uncaring, egocentric and even vicious. Then Josie noticed how she had become bitter, uncaring, egocentric and even vicious. But Josie, being the "brains" of the outfit figured out that the Fiona-Frame pair had been conditioning her with subliminal messaging under the CDs of her music she was forced to listen to for the trumped up purpose of evaluating them before release. Once Josie had figured out the dastardly deed, she launched a repair campaign to rescue the world from the messaging meisters. By the way, there are no parents or any other authority in this preteen shaper I could find. It does seem strange that the girls could possess a house with a garage, vehicles, sound equipment and such straight out of high school, so one must assume there are parents ... somewhere. It did seem, though, that the girls were completely free from any authority. Some of that freedom from authority was found in dress to maximize the female form and/or skin exposure -- a form of exhibitionism, "advertising" to some -- and a lot of it; no nudity, but no doubt (especially with the full male nudity, genitals masked by convenience objects). God admonishes us in First Peter 5:5 to clothe ourselves in humility. The wearing of revealing dress and streaking are hardly humble. Also flippin' off authority was the proliferation of the three/four letter word vocabulary upon which God looks very sternly [Col. 3:8, Titus 2:6-8]. "Yeah, well I hear it and more every day at school." Yeah, well that does not excuse the sin of speaking it. Nor does the first time excuse the second, the third ... the thousandth. When God tells us not to set vile things before our eyes [Ps. 101:3], the ears are included. Eyes do not come without ears. Though hearing one of the school kids use foul language is sinful for the one speaking the filthy communication but not for the ones hearing it, to set yourself and/or your kids in front of a screen you know will present vulgarity is another matter altogether. Whether I believe it or not. Remember what I've been saying about movies promoting freedom from accountability, freedom from consequences and freedom from authority: about the stealing of childhood from children? Well, *Josie* is a good one for this. God speaks to us through His Word [Prov. 10:1, 29:15] which tells us that to leave our children (which includes uncleaved teens) to themselves (other than age-appropriate autonomy decided by the parents) without guidance and control will result in a son or daughter bringing grief to his/her father and shame to his/her mother. Makes sense, doesn't it? God knows what He is talking about. And the sin of exhibitionism should be grief to a father and shame to a mother. Since mom/dad answers to the Father for his/her children, mom/dad should decide FOR the child what is and is not exhibitionistic, NOT the movies and fads started by them and not the child. And when the child is no longer a child is up to mom and dad, NOT the movies. If needed to focus or fortify, applicable text is underlined or bracketed [ ]. *******Food for Thought******* 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. FINDINGS / SCORING: 
NOTE: Multiple occurrences of each item described below may be likely, definitely when plural. Wanton Violence/Crime (W): Impudence/Hate (I)(1): Sex/Homosexuality (S): Drugs/Alcohol (D): Offense to God (O)(2): Murder/Suicide (M)(3):
  |
