Hugh Hefner saves the Hollywood Sign

The movies Hugh Hefner grew up watching must have been those of the 1930s and ’40s, the era even conservative Christians now consider good, clean and wholesome. But now we read that they fueled the fantasies of the man who brought pornography into the mainstream. In 1938 John R. Rice of The Sword of The Lord published the short book, What Is wrong With The Movies? His across the board condemnation of movies may have struck some as extreme, but I think he was onto something, detecting the slow-acting poison and pernicious effect films would play on people, especially for Christians. Fundamentalism seems to want to sweep under the rug some of its earlier positions against movies, dancing, and “mixed bathing” as it was quaintly called. This particular Rice book was out-of-print, unavailable and unmentioned on The Sword website the last time I checked (I finally bought a beat-up old copy off eBay). It’s a book worth reading. Our forefathers in Fundamentalism have something to teach us, speaking almost prophetically from the past. (PS: I took the title for my post from the famous “Dan Quayle Was Right” headline The Atlantic ran back in 1993 after acknowledging Quayle’s much-mocked remarks re Murphy Brown’s having a child out of wedlock were in hindsight correct.)

I have been at times suprised at the amorality of some of the movies from that period. The fact that they “don’t show anything”, as a modern teen might put it, doesn’t change the fact that the behavior and moral reasonsing behind it could set a rather bad example.

My only objection to where the early Fundies went with that was the extent and reasoning: to condemn an entire medium over the amorality of some of its producers and product is not rational. We don’t ban all paintings, though the artists of today can be offensive. We don’t burn all books, though there are many that are evil. We shouldn’t condemn movies inherently, though there are many that are reprehensible.

I went through a classic movie phase a few years ago. I guessed that “From Here to Eternity” was just a love story between a single man and woman. It was really the story of an adulterous affair between characters played by Burt Lancaster and Deborah Kerr. It was released in 1953. Of course, it had no nudity and no vulgar language, but to people who alreadly knew what happens in an adulterous affair, what was implied could be imagined.

Having recently studied Genesis, I have noticed that some of its stories (Reuben and Jacob’s concubine; Judah and Tamar), if they were made into a movie, we might ban them. I think the difference is that the Bible tells these stories with the point of making a moral judgment that such actions are sinful while modern day stories (From Here to Eternity, Breakfast at Tiffany’s, Bridges of Madison County) romanticize sin.

but even before 1939 Christians were railing against the movies. Rice was actually a little behind the curve. The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hays_Code] Hays Code was put into place (this was not a government regulation but a voluntary code put together by the movie studios) in 1930, after talking pictures were introduced and movies featuring non-stop double entendres (think Mae West and the early Betty Boop shorts) were the biggest box office attractions. After Christian organizations, most notably the Catholic Legion of Decency, protested violations of the code, the code began to be enforced in 1934, and was enforced fairly uniformly until the 1960s. It was disbanded in 1968, when the MPAA introduced the letter ratings.

Getting back to the topic at hand, I love a lot of the classic movies, but I could not agree more that there are many amoral messages and a lot of things implied that are opposed to biblical values. In this era, when the profanity and coarseness is in your face, it is easy to miss the messages in those movies. But they are there, and if you read the remarks of those who made the movies, they knew what they were doing and were fairly brazen about it.

A few years ago, I was watching a classic Christmas movie, and it dawned on me that only one among the ones with which I’m familiar even mentions the Reason for the season. It’s a Wonderful Life, White Christmas, Miracle on 34th Street, etc. are all just feel-good stories. The only one I know if that mentions the story of our Savior’s birth is A Charlie Brown Christmas.

I guess Hollywood gave the current administration a head start in removing Christianity from the public square.