January 24, 2006

Raping the Marlboro Man

[Mirrored from my other blog.]

I’ve been intrigued by dynamic “popular” lists for a while now. First it was BlogDex, then came Del.icio.us, and lately I’ve even been glancing at Technorati’s ‘Today’s Most Popular.

That said, I’ve noticed that on their popular movies page, Brokeback Mountain has been topping the list by over double the blog mentions for the past few days. I haven’t taken the time to discern whether a majority of these blogs are in favor of the movie or if they are recognizing it as propaganda, but I thought I’d throw in my two cents, regardless.

Actually, just about everything I want to say about this movie has been said by David Kupelian in his article ‘Brokeback Mountain’: Rape of the Marlboro Man. Please read this article in its entirety. In the meantime, here are some important excerpts:

“Brokeback Mountain,” the controversial “gay cowboy” film that has garnered seven Golden Globe nominations and breathless media reviews – and has now emerged as a front-runner for the Oscars – is a brilliant propaganda film, reportedly causing viewers to change the way they feel about homosexual relationships and same-sex marriage.

And how do the movie-makers pull off such a dazzling feat? Simple. They do it by raping the “Marlboro Man,” that revered American symbol of rugged individualism and masculinity.

We all know the Marlboro Man. In “The Marketing of Evil,” I show how the Philip Morris Company made marketing history by taking one of the most positive American images of all time – the cowboy – and attaching it to a negative, death-oriented product – cigarettes.

Hit the pause button for a moment so this idea can completely sink in: Cigarette marketers cleverly attached, in the public’s mind, two utterly unrelated things: 1) the American cowboy, with all of the powerful feelings that image evokes in us, of independence, self-confidence, wide-open spaces and authentic Americanism, and 2) cigarettes, a stinky, health-destroying waste of money. This legendary advertising campaign targeting men succeeded in transforming market underdog Marlboro (up until then, sold as a women’s cigarette with the slogan “Mild as May”) into the world’s best-selling cigarette.

It was all part of the modern marketing revolution, which meant that, instead of touting a product’s actual benefits, marketers instead would psychologically manipulate the public by associating their product with the fulfillment of people’s deepest, unconscious needs and desires. (Want to sell liquor? Put a seductive woman in the ad.) Obviously, the marketers could never actually deliver on that promise – but emotional manipulation sure is an effective way to sell a lot of products.

. . .

Yes, the talents of Hollywood’s finest are brought together in a successful attempt at making us experience Ennis’s suffering, supposedly inflicted by a homophobic society. Heath Ledger’s performance is brilliant and devastating. We do indeed leave the theater feeling Ennis’s pain. Mission accomplished.

Lost in all of this, however, are towering, life-and-death realities concerning sex and morality and the sanctity of marriage and the preciousness of children and the direction of our civilization itself. So please, you moviemakers, how about easing off that tight camera shot of Ennis’s suffering and doing a slow pan over the massive wreckage all around him? What about the years of silent anguish and loneliness Alma stoically endures for the sake of keeping her family together, or the terrible betrayal, suffering and tears of the children, bereft of a father? None of this merits more than a brief acknowledgment in “Brokeback Mountain.”

What is important to the moviemakers, rather, is that the viewer be made to feel, and feel, and feel again as deeply as possible the exquisitely painful loneliness and heartache of the homosexual cowboys – denied their truest happiness because of an ignorant and homophobic society.

Thus are the Judeo-Christian moral values that formed the very foundation and substance of Western culture for the past three millennia all swept away on a delicious tide of manufactured emotion. And believe me, skilled directors and actors can manufacture emotion by the truckload. It’s what they do for a living.

Here’s something I think we need to truly think about. Masterfully produced propaganda could serve to tie us emotionally to just about any behavior, no matter how deviant or gruesome.

Do we understand that Hollywood could easily produce a similar movie to “Brokeback Mountain,” only this time glorifying an incest relationship, or even an adult-child sexual relationship? Like “Brokeback,” it too would serve to desensitize us to the immoral and destructive reality of what we’re seeing, while fervently coaxing us into embracing that which we once rightly shunned.

All the filmmakers would need to do is skillfully make viewers experience the actors’ powerful emotions of loneliness and emptiness – juxtaposed with feelings of joy and fulfillment when the two “lovers” are together – to bring us to a new level of “understanding” for any forbidden “love.” Alongside this, of course, they would necessarily portray those opposed to this unorthodox “love” as Nazis or thugs.

It’s interesting to consider that even Jake Gyllenhaal was uncomfortable as an actor simulating homosexual sex with Heath Ledger.

I was super uncomfortable … [but] what made me most courageous was that I realized I had to try to let go of that stereotype I had in my mind, that bit of homophobia, and try for a second to be vulnerable and sensitive. It was f—in’ hard, man. I succeeded only for milliseconds.

The terms “homophobia” and “stereotype” have been used and overused to mask what’s really going on in the majority of American minds. It’s the truth, most people are innately uncomfortable with homosexual relationships. Period. Kupelian rightly asks, “Could it be, rather, that his conflict resulted from putting himself in a position, having agreed to do the film, where he was required to violate his own conscience? As so often happens, he was tricked into pushing past invisible internal barriers – crossing a line he wasn’t meant to cross. It’s called seduction.”

It’s truly scary to step back and observe how this works. Human beings innately react negatively to an unnatural situation or corrupt behavior. Yet, when such a situation is desirable for some, people must be coaxed into ignoring that natural reacton. How is that accomplished? The definition of what is “natural” is slowly changed, and what is correct is subtley transformed into “evil.” Then, opposition is easily painted as ignorance or bigotry or weakness.

As I said at the outset, Hollywood has now raped the Marlboro Man. It has taken a revered symbol of America – the cowboy – with all the powerful emotions and associations that are rooted deep down in the pioneering American soul, and grafted onto it a self-destructive lifestyle it wants to force down Americans’ throats. The result is a brazen propaganda vehicle designed to replace the reservations most Americans still have toward homosexuality with powerful feelings of sympathy, guilt over past “homophobia” – and ultimately the complete and utter acceptance of homosexuality as equivalent in every way to heterosexuality.

If and when that day comes, America will have totally abandoned its core biblical principles – as well as the Author of those principles. The radical secularists will have gotten their wish, and this nation – like the traditional cowboy characters corrupted in “Brokeback Mountain” – will have stumbled down a sad, self-destructive and ultimately disastrous road.

Thanks David, you’re spot-on.

January 7, 2006

Via Crucis Popular Posts

If you’re visiting from my other blog, Putting the Action in Distraction, welcome! It’s been a while since I updated this blog, so I thought I’d put together a little round-up of the most popular entries for your quick perusal.

  • Truth & Hypocrisy: The first entry on this blog, and a sort of introduction to what it’s all about: truth.
  • The Sharlet Letter: This was a response to an article by Jeff Sharlet (of The Revealer) in Rolling Stone about “modern” Christianity and sexual purity.
  • Most Chastity vs. Sharletry: A follow-up article to The Sharlet Letter based on comments I received.
  • The Big Bang & Blind Faith: With the increased attack on faith on the Internet, I thought it was time I wrote something illustrating the significant scientific and metaphysical problems with the “Big Bang.”
  • A collection of quotes from scientists who indicate they recognize inexplicable design in nature.
  • Theology vs. The Bible: Joshua Duncan wrote an article arguing against the idea of simply being a “Biblicist.” He claims that one must adopt a particular “Theology” (in his case, Calvinism) to make one’s stance clear. I disagree.

Enjoy, and as always, discussion is encouraged!

November 4, 2005

Abortion Access and Sex

Jonathan Klick and Thomas Stratmann have written an interesting paper on abortion and risky sex among teenagers. (Download the PDF):

Incentives matter. They matter even in activities as primal as sex, and they matter even among teenagers, who are conventionally thought to be relatively myopic. If the expected costs of risky sex are raised, teens will substitute toward less risky activities such as protected sex or abstinence. In addition to modeling the decision making processes of teenagers, this insight is important in other contexts as well. Many public policies can be improved by recognizing the sensitivity of teenage sexual decisions to costs and benefits.

We study one set of policies in this paper. We show that increasing the cost of abortion for teens lowers the insurance value of abortion. This induces teenage girls to avoid risky sex, which will likely have the effect of lowering pregnancy rates, abortion rates, and birth rates among this group of individuals. While these positive effects alone might not justify parental involvement laws, they presumably should not be ignored in the debate. Behavior is not static, and claims based on the assumption of static behavior are flawed.

Wouldn’t criminalization of abortion accomplish the same thing to an even greater degree? Illegality is a deterrent for all types of behavior teens are apt experiment with. The deterrent then becomes two fold: (1) the price goes up simply because it is now a “black market” operation, and (2) lack of governmental and medical support increases the risk of a botched procedure. Why beat around the bush by raising the price? Outlaw the practice.

[via Marginal Revolution]

October 31, 2005

Vote on Proposition 2: November 8

November 8, 2005 is your opportunity to vote on Propositon 2 which constitutionally defines marriage as “one man and one woman.

(a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.

(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.

There is some interesting commentary on the proposition over at the Lonestar Times (Houston).

FEEL FREE TO DISTRIBUTE THE ABOVE IMAGE!
Here are some various formats for your printing/blogging pleasure.

For screen resolution:
* 544 X 800 GIF
* 340 X 500 GIF
* 163 X 240 GIF

For printing:
* Full-Page PDF
* 4-to-a-page PDF
* Now by popular demand: Black & White, 4-to-a-page

August 22, 2005

I’m back!

Well, I’m back in town and the honeymoon was fantastic. It’s going to take me a few days to get my bearings, then I’ll be writing again.

In the meantime, I recommend Kyle Butt’s latest article over at Apologetics Press: God Always Thinks Ahead. It’s a short (and sweet) read.

July 27, 2005

The Christian Paradox

Bill McKibben has a piece in the August issue of Harper’s Magazine entitled The Christian Paradox:

America is simultaneously the most professedly Christian of the developed nations and the least Christian in its behavior. That paradox—more important, perhaps, than the much touted ability of French women to stay thin on a diet of chocolate and cheese—illuminates the hollow at the core of our boastful, careening culture.

Ours is among the most spiritually homogenous rich nations on earth. Depending on which poll you look at and how the question is asked, somewhere around 85 percent of us call ourselves Christian. Israel, by way of comparison, is 77 percent Jewish. It is true that a smaller number of Americans—about 75 percent—claim they actually pray to God on a daily basis, and only 33 percent say they manage to get to church every week.

85 percent? That doesn’t exactly jive with the concept of a strait and narrow way. Of course, only 33% “manage” to abide by the clear command to worship with other Christians, which solidifies the point; we can call ourselves Christians all day long, but who are we fooling? This is the behavior that calcifies non-Christians’ stance against Christ: hypocrisy.

Then again, it all boils down to the fact that Jesus knows the difference:

Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’

June 27, 2005

Random Thought: Creative Genius

Exodus 32:15-16:

Then Moses turned and went down from the mountain with the two tablets of the testimony in his hand, tablets that were written on both sides; on the front and on the back they were written. The tablets were the work of God, and the writing was the writing of God, engraved on the tablets.

Have you ever really paused to consider that Moses was delivered two tablets, hewn and engraved by almighty God? As a designer, I pay particular attention to typography. I can’t even imagine how those Ten Commandments looked, engraved to literal perfection by God Himself.

We are created in the image of God, and thus, we possess an inherent creativity. Artistotle aptly noted that the driving force behind our desire to be creative is that we are imitative creatures. Even the most “original” artists cannot escape what Aristotle called mimesis; the creative interpretation of the world we live in. We admire a beautiful painting of a sunset, a flower or the human figure, but do we often stop to think about the reason we find it so beautiful? The truth is, it is nothing more than an imitation or representation of the perfectly beautiful creativity of our God. We paint sunsets; God made the sunset. The world is quick to laud a “creative genius” in their midst, but so many fail to recognize the source of all creative genius: Jehovah.

Romans 1:19-20:

For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.