Christian Analysis of American Culture on RENT- Page 7

[MLE]

Posted: 11/29/05 at 12:19pm

Haha, personally, I like Napoleon Dynamite

under "Impudence/Hate"
"five uses of the euphemism for the most foul of the foul words" (the way he says that always gets me!)
and
"drawing of flatulence "(I don't recall that in the movie, how exactly does one DO that anyway?)

[Pippin]

Posted: 11/29/05 at 3:41pm

so , I just looked up team America (couldn't help myself) and the hypocracy just slays me:

under Sexual immorality he lists first, "vulgar homosexual anatomical references, repeatedly"

and then right under it he lists "insults of those who chose to practice homosexuality, repeatedly"

so in other words, he is the only one who is allowed to homo bash, and when hollywood does it, THEN it is immoral. wow, I love this site

other highlights include: property damage by arrogance , oral sex during intercourse (I guess the intercourse wasn't bad enough), murder by being eaten by shark, graphic.

God bless the crazies.

[brdwycutie]

Posted: 11/29/05 at 4:00pm

Hi everyone!

I'm brand new to this site (had to get away from IMDB... too many trolls... lol), and this is actually my first post, so I just want to say hi. *waves* lol

This is slightly off-topic, but I just wanted to say how wonderful it was to read posts by Christians who love RENT. I personally am very confused about religion and have not found my place yet.

The church I have been attending for a while with a friend of mine is starting to frustrate me.

Two things that happened just this past Sunday that make me think I don't belong there:
1) I overheard someone talking about being quoted in the newspaper as saying "As a Christian, of course I don't agree with the morning-after-pill" or something to that effect.
2) I noticed that they have a book for sale at the church called "Marriage Under Fire: Why We Must Win This Battle" by James Dobson. Long story short, the book goes to great lengths to explain the "...dire ramifications of judicial activism and presents compelling arguments against the legalization of homosexual unions" (directly quoted from the book description on Amazon.com - the link is http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1590524314/103-4622022-4756621?v=glance&n=283155&s=books&v=glance if anyone is interested.)

I apologize that this is turning into such a ramble, but I just wanted to say that a lot of these posts give me hope that there may yet be room for me in Christianity despite the fact that I am bi-sexual and liberal-minded.

Alright, aside from that, thanks for the link because I'm sure that I will be highly amused by other reviews. Also, the RENT movie is one of the most beautiful things I've ever seen on screen! =)

[Yero my Hero]

Posted: 11/29/05 at 4:45pm

(to orangeskittles' earlier post) I just looked up "autonomic" to be sure I knew what it meant. It means anything that is involuntary. So erections would not count. Although, what he basically said was: "All voluntary movements are voluntary." Uh...duh?

[boatsintheghetto]

Posted: 11/29/05 at 5:01pm

with the whole reveling thing...i was in CCD a few years ago and our teachers were so closed minded and stuff and apparently God wants us to be happy, but he doesnt want us to try to be...he doesnt want us to do stuff that will benefit ourselves just to make us ha ppy....we cant try to be happy...happiness must come with what we do for others...i dunno it was stupid so maybe thats wha its dealing w/?

[MLE]

Posted: 11/29/05 at 5:22pm

Weird! I've been co-teaching CCD for the last 4 years and I've never heard anything like that.

Haha, probably for the best anyway, that would never go over with my class! They can't even sit still!

*edit to add* And yes, some of them are definitely more closed minded than I am. We just all usually try to avoid issues like that. Plus, I teach 3rd grade so it's pretty easy for me. I just can't wait till February when I need to take off class one week because I'm taking a trip down to Madison to see Rent that night!
Updated On: 11/29/05 at 05:22 PM

[Yero my Hero]

Posted: 11/29/05 at 5:31pm

I decided to email the writer. I'm not going to bother arguing about the religious points or the quality of the movie, I'm just correcting his factual errors. Anyway, I'm backing myself up by citing sources, so I clicked on the link for the report he references that proves a correlation between "programming such as Rent" and teenage drug use and sexual activity. First of all, the study only measured cigarette smoking and alcohol consumption. Furthermore, the study was based only on R-rated movies. Rent is PG-13. Not only did he make a logical leap to assume that kids would copy the heroin use in Rent, but he put Rent into a category in which it does not belong.

Arg. He is SO getting an earful. I'm trying to keep it less rant and more professional, but it's tough.

[Pippin]

Posted: 11/29/05 at 5:37pm

to bdwycutie: first of all, welcome to the board, and let me see that you will soon enough find your place in religion. let me just say that you seem to be in the right state of mind by liking the message of rent and not the content. if more "Christians" thought like this, we would all be better off. they need to realize that the main message of Christianity is inclusion, even though most have lost that message and now preach exclusion, which is the exact opposite of Christ's teachings. most of these people tend to quote every single verse except "let he without sin throw the first stone" don't be put off by hypocrites in religion. just know who you are and what you stand for, and know that no one is allowed to change that or shame you for it. just practice the golden rule and all will be golden.

[Ad_Libbing]

Posted: 11/29/05 at 6:04pm

Ugh. CCD. When I was in second grade, I was told that I would go to Hell for praying with my fingers laced, and my mother pulled me out of there so fast that my head spun.

Yero My Hero-- If the author has anything to say, your informative e-mail will be violent and hateful, and the FBI's going to be on your tail. Watch out!

[Yero my Hero]

Posted: 11/29/05 at 6:05pm

This is long, and I apologize, but this is the email I wrote to Crazy Christian Guy. I tried to hide my disgust. I hope I succeeded enough that he'll read it.

For starters, I was raised agnostic and I do not consider myself a Christian. I do not agree with many of the things you believe, but I respect that you believe them.

That said, I loved the movie Rent. To be honest, I was led to your review for a laugh. However, ignoring the fact that I disagree with your religious points, I feel I need to correct you on a few factual errors in your discussion.

"I wonder how many folks know that the HIV particle is 50 times smaller than the pores in latex prophylactics? I wonder how many folks know that blood and any body exudate or fluid that originates in the blood can carry the HIV. And I wonder if there are any body fluids or exudates that do not originate in the blood."

There are only four bodily fluids that can transmit HIV: blood, semen, vaginal fluid, and breastmilk. While minute amounts of the virus may be carried in other fluids such as saliva and urine, one cannot contract the disease from these. In fact, there is a protein in saliva that deactivates the virus.

Furthermore, it is a myth that condoms do not block HIV. A 2002 issue of Conscience magazine stated that the pores in condoms are too small for HIV to pass through. "Condoms have been shown to be effective barriers not only to HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, but also to herpes simplex, CMV, hepatitis B, chlamydia and gonorrhea." Lambskin condoms do have larger pores that HIV can pass through, but those are very rarely used.

"While I know too little to argue what is called same-sex attractions, having same-sex attractions does not make one 'gay.' Acting on same-sex attractions does."

According to the American Psychology Association, "sexual orientation" is defined as: "an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual or affectional attraction to another person." Therefore, someone is not gay just because he or she has sex with a member of the same sex. It is possible for someone to be gay and be saving him or herself for marriage. The attraction makes them gay, not the action. If you are using a definition other than the widely accepted APA definition, you need to cite your source.

"...if we choose abstinence and keep our clothes on until marriage and don't do illegal drugs, our chances of contracting the HIV are nearly nonexistent."

What about a heterosexual woman (to give an example) who is married and enjoying sexual relations with her spouse? She is not doing anything illegal or immoral. But what if the husband cheats and contracts HIV? It happens, and it may be immoral, but not on the part of the wife. She is happy in what she thinks is a monogamous relationship, but then she contracts HIV from her husband after making no immoral decisions herself. What would you tell her?

I personally know a woman whose parents both died of AIDS in the mid-90s. They did nothing wrong either. In the early 80s, her father was prescribed medication by his doctor to treat a common medical condition. His pills included human plasma. At this time, they were not screening all the donated blood for HIV, so they did not know that his pills were contaminated with the virus. He contracted it and unknowingly passed it on to his wife. The wife buried him and then died herself two years later. If you are interested in their story, my friend's website is http://elainepasqua.com. She is also very knowledgeable about the facts surrounding HIV and AIDS and I would recommend you email her.

One more thing: is it a choice to get raped? Rape causes many, many transmissions of HIV and I don't think a single one of those people went out thinking, "I want to get raped by someone who's HIV-positive today."

You stated that AIDS is preventable. For the most part, it is, and it is sad that it still manages to be a global pandemic. However, it is not as easy to avoid as you make it out to be. It is wrong information like this that helps the spread of this horrible disease.

"Further, even the American College of Physicians has found the copycat syndrome associated with such entertainment. In their report they find an undeniable link between such programming as in Rent and the abuse of substances by kids of the MPAA 'acceptable' age stratum for this film (90% of the study population were under 14 years old)."

I looked at that report. First of all, they only measured increases in cigarette and alcohol consumption, not illegal drugs as you imply. Second, they only looked at R-rated movies. Rent was rated PG-13. You cannot put those in the same category without an explanation as to why. Finally, the acceptable ages for Rent are 13 and up. The study was done on kids in grades 5-8. Even though 90% of the children are under 14, as you state, we have no idea how many are 13 and up. My guess is less than 15%.

Additionally, the report proves nothing other than a correlation (NOT causality) between restrictions on viewing R-rated movies and experimenting with cigarettes and alcohol. They conclude that restricting R-rated movies will keep your child from trying drugs, but that is not a valid conclusion. It is very likely that the reason behind this result is that children who are restricted from seeing R-rated movies have more restrictions placed on other aspects of their lives. Kids who are left alone will have more opportunity to experiment. Perhaps we should blame the parents for the children's bad behavior and not the movies.

Finally: "Who would have thought the high-wattage Taye Diggs could sing? Diggs didn't look all that comfortable when singing, but he can sing a lot better than I can. That is, if it was Diggs actually singing which I suspect it was."

That is just uncalled for. Of course Taye Diggs was actually singing. He is in the credits, he is on the soundtrack, and, furthermore, anyone who has done their research will know that Taye did musicals before he ever starred in a movie. He was discovered, in fact, in the original production of RENT on Broadway in 1996. Why him? Why would you imply that it might not be his voice? It's simply mean-spirited and has absolutely nothing to do with the "Christian-ness" of the film.

I respect your differing opinions on morality and religion. However, it is irresponsible and inexcusable to publish blatantly wrong information or intentionally misleading information when you are in a position of authority. Parents rely on you to inform them on what movies to show their children.

I hope you read my entire email. If it was at all offensive, I apologize. I tried to be as respectful as possible, despite our different views. Please understand that I am only trying to provide you with correct information to pass on to the people who look up to you and read your reviews.

Thank you.
~Claudia Weinstock

Updated On: 11/29/05 at 06:05 PM

[xoxRogue]

Posted: 11/29/05 at 6:16pm

Bravo. Bravo.

[Ad_Libbing]

Posted: 11/29/05 at 6:23pm

Very nicely put. I just hope that he doesn't see the word "agnostic" and go automatically nuts.

[Yero my Hero]

Posted: 11/29/05 at 6:41pm

Also, thank you to whoever posted the bit early on about condoms from Conscience. As you can see, I quoted it and you.

[Alex LaVelle]

Posted: 11/29/05 at 6:46pm

Clearly, the author should have paid better attention during Chicago (if it's the same guy), then he surely would have had more faith in Taye's singing ability. (Wait, scratch that, that would be blasphemous.)

And speaking of Chicago.....adults wear underwear in it, too. We need to start a support group! Underoo-aholics Anonymous!

I also enjoy how the Chicago post differentiates between "drinking, repeatedly" and "booze, repeatedly". Also, "smoking, repeatedly (frequent)". I understand the point of this is to warn parents (or so they say), but I think that as hard as they are hitting on some of these shows, they are showing some bias.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 11/29/05 at 7:07pm

"I just looked up "autonomic" to be sure I knew what it meant. It means anything that is involuntary. So erections would not count."

Actually, erections are involuntary- ask any teenage boy that's had to get up to do a math problem on the board with a boner. An erection is a reflex, so it's your nervous system that has control over it, not your brain.

[Yero my Hero]

Posted: 11/29/05 at 7:48pm

That's exactly what I was saying. I was responding to you when you said that erections were non-autonomic.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 11/29/05 at 7:53pm

Whoops, sorry. I just meant that the guy was wrong in saying all sexual practices were non-autonomic.

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 11/29/05 at 7:56pm

Brava, Yero my Hero. Very well written.

[Feathah]

Posted: 11/29/05 at 8:13pm

Great post, Yero!

I'd love to hear Anthony's thoughts on this.

[jeremykushnier1fan]

Posted: 11/29/05 at 8:24pm

Jesus is mentioned.

[brdwycutie]

Posted: 11/29/05 at 8:36pm

A couple of things, semi-off-topic...

First of all, someone mentioned that Harry Potter had a "camera angle to force viewer on private parts." I figured it out! When the Beauxbaton's (sp?) girls were walking in, there was a shot of their backsides when they were walking away... (I would probably have a used a "three-letter word" instead of saying backside, but I don't know how they are about language on this site... lol)

Also, I think their rating's system is a little flawed. 40 Days and 40 Night somehow rated HIGHER, as in BETTER than Rent. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed 40 Days and 40 Nights as much as the next person my age, but if I were a parent I'd MUCH rather have my child watch a movie with a message that has "inappropriate" things in it than one that simply has "inappropriate" things for comedy.

[JACXR71]

Posted: 12/8/05 at 10:24pm

I know there's another thread on this topic going on right now (though this one was actually first), but I'm bumping this one because I'm curious to know if Yero my Hero ever heard back from the guy...I thought that his email was extremely well written and would be very interested to hear the guy's response. Though I wouldn't be surprised if he never replied...

Updated On: 12/8/05 at 10:24 PM

[Yero my Hero]

Posted: 12/9/05 at 2:59pm

Sadly, no, I never heard back. I just hope he read it and didn't freak out and delete it after two sentences. As long as he read it, I got my point across.

Believe me, if I had heard, I would have posted his response.

[shameless]

Posted: 12/9/05 at 3:09pm

You know, I thought I'd regret looking at the site, but I have to say, I got a kick out of the list of offenses on the right side of the page. I didn't bother to read the "review".

[dragon8fly2005]

Posted: 12/9/05 at 3:31pm

Many verses in God's inerrant and perfect Word..

Umm..the Bible isn't entirely perfect. There are TONS of contradictions in books that are next to each other.

Anyway...

Yeah, the Napolean one was funny. There's another site like this I think and I was reading reviews on music. pluggedinonline.com I think.

Yeah...

keep smiling,
bika