Wrinkle in Time: When Christianity is Prostituted to Politics

"Unfortunately this adaptation of a beloved book did not escape the butchery of Hollywood secularism." American Conservative

989 reads

There are 3 Comments

Aaron Blumer's picture

EditorAdmin

Haven't seen the movie, but have read the book more than once. It was never particularly Christian to begin with. As a kid I remember finding it exciting that there were a few story elements that seemed to fit in noticeably well with a Christian view of the world, but that's about it. Mostly it's classic good vs. evil. Good story, though, but pretty weird. Liked it a lot.

But the movie... well, I'm sure it's dumbed down in more ways than one.

Don Johnson's picture

I posted a link here a few days ago that tells a bit about the author. She was a liberal universalist, attending mostly Episcopalian churches if I recall correctly.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Bert Perry's picture

it still strikes me as odd that every Hollywood screenwriter seems to have a better grasp on the story than the author who's sold millions of copies of her book, or whose work has joined the canon of English literature.  

There is also a general tendency for that "editing" to expose the general bias of Hollyweird, as well as a general inability to understand the story they're trying to present.  A good example (clean even) is to compare the Hollyweird version of Pride and Prejudice (2005, with Keira Knightley) to the 1995 BBC version.  The former simply doesn't grasp the fact that the Bennetts were not poor, but rather their fortune could not be given to the daughters when Mr. Bennett died.  The BBC version, which of course would be watched by a bunch of people who understood that concept, does.

More or less, Hollyweird tends to remake literature in its own image, which is their right, I guess, but it's simultaneously my right to say "meh" and ignore it.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.