Eyes Wide Open

D. Romanowski William

Description

Grounded in Christian principles, this accessible and engaging book offers an informed and fascinating approach to popular culture. William D. Romanowski provides affectionate yet astute analysis of familiar, well-loved movies and television characters from Indiana Jones to Homer Simpson, and he speaks with historical depth and expertise on films from Casablanca to Crash and music from Bruce Springsteen to U2.Romanowski's confessional approach affirms a role for popular culture in faithful living. Practical, analytical approaches to content, meaning, and artistic style offer the tools to participate responsibly and imaginatively in popular cultural activities. An engaging read, this new edition introduces students and thoughtful readers to popular culture--one of the most influential forces in contemporary society.

Sujets

• Christian theology
• Media studies

Informations

• Publié par: Baker Publishing Group
• Date de parution: 01 février 2007
• Nombre de lectures: 0
• EAN13: 9781441200808
• Langue: English

Extrait

EYES WIDE OPEN
EYES WIDE OPEN
L OOKING FOR G OD IN P OPULAR C ULTURE
Revised and Expanded Edition
William D. Romanowski
2007 by William D. Romanowski
Published by Brazos Press a division of Baker Publishing Group P.O. Box 6287, Grand Rapids, MI 49516-6287 www.brazospress.com
First edition 2001 by William D. Romanowski
Printed in the United States of America
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means-for example, electronic, photocopy, recording-without the prior written permission of the publisher. The only exception is brief quotations in printed reviews.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Romanowski, William D.
Eyes wide open / William D. Romanowski.-Rev. and expanded ed.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references.
ISBN 10: 1-58743-201-3 (pbk.)
ISBN 978-1-58743-201-9 (pbk.)
1. Popular culture-Religious aspects-Christianity. 2. Popular culture-United States. I. Title BR526.R646 2007 261.0973-dc22 2006021101
Unless otherwise noted, scripture is taken from the HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION . NIV . Copyright 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved.
Photos were supplied by Photofest, New York, New York.
To my sister and brother -Kim and Michael- and for the next generation
Michael, Lucy, Nellie, Tara, Nora, Sam, Claire, Max, Spencer, Abraham, and Molly
C ONTENTS
Preface to the Revised and Expanded Edition
Introduction
Part One
1. State of the Art: Worldly Amusements No More
2. The Smoke Goes Upwards: Faith and Culture
3. Terms of the Trade: Studying Popular Art and Culture
Part Two
4. Close Encounters of the High, Low, and Divine Kind: Reimagining the Popular Arts
5. Mapping Reality: Popular Art and Culture
6. Measuring Christian Distinction: Moral, Ideological, and Theological Approaches
7. Popular Art as Art: Marking the Aesthetic
Part Three
8. Cultural Landscape: Toward a Christian Framework
9. The American Melodramatic Way: Individualism, Religion, and Materialism
10. The Message in the Bottle: Love, Sex, and Gender Stereotypes
11. A History of Violence: Charting the Terrain
Conclusion
Appendix: A Matrix for Analysis
Relevant Readings
Notes
P REFACE TO THE R EVISED AND E XPANDED E DITION
One of the challenges in writing about popular art and culture is its constant movement: films are out of theaters and on DVD in a matter of months, television shows cancelled, and a CD can move up (and down) the Billboard charts with a bullet. For this second edition, I ve updated a number of the illustrations but retained many others that have proven to have legs. My own personal tastes and preferences will become obvious. I like Bruce Springsteen s music, for example, and use it to model the kind of analysis that a reader can do likewise with a favorite artist. Since my teaching and research interests are in film studies, I rely on movies for many illustrations. But it is also the case that popular films like Pretty Woman or Titanic (though not personal favorites) have an advantage as illustrations because so many people have seen them, unlike television programs and music that reach more specialized audiences based on age or genre. Also, examining the same artwork in different contexts can show that there are multiple ways of thinking about a film, television program, or music video.
Language is another issue. For convenience, I sometimes use Hollywood as a generic term to refer to the entertainment media, and not just the film industry. Since my original writing, the term Christian has acquired a measure of ambiguity. It has been used in reference to the music of Amy Grant, Jars of Clay, and U2; Christian romance, Anne Lamott books, and the Tim LaHaye/Jerry B. Jenkins Left Behind series; films like The Omega Code and those of Paul Schrader and Martin Scorsese. As an adjective, Christian has taken on multiple meanings-both positive and pejorative-depending on the source and audience. In thinking about this I found talking about faith perspectives and a cultural orientation more useful and descriptive in most contexts. Even so, I still use the adjective Christian to refer to popular art and cultural orientations that resonate with basic beliefs and assumptions that people claiming the Christian faith adhere to.
Categories that mark social, religious, and cultural distinctions have also been politicized to a great extent. Analyses of a society marked by diversity and the existence of subcultures need to be able to distinguish dominant and subordinate cultures, for example. I read recently that some evangelical Christians with a for us or against us mentality have added mainstream media to a list of terms like liberal and secular humanist that they use to divide groups of people into hard and fast categories of good and evil. It is only realistic to draw observable distinctions where they exist between ideals, beliefs, and assumptions valued by members of a particular Christian subculture, for example, and those of the broader (mainstream) culture. And so I still make use of mainstream to refer to the entertainment industry or the dominant American culture. Marking these differences does not mean that I share the hostile attitudes of any particular group or even their polarized mind-set. I have also tried as much as possible to be specific in naming particular Christian groups like evangelicals, mainline Protestants, and Catholics.
For this second edition I recast the original material to situate it amidst contemporary events and trends and also for a more specific audience. I have added new chapters, reworked, expanded, and updated others keeping in mind those people who are using this study in educational settings, especially liberal arts courses in film, media, and popular culture. Supportive material and documentation has been included so that readers so inclined can follow up these sources as part of their own research and investigation. I refer to critics regularly not just to glean insights into particular artworks but also to show how we can benefit from critical reviews and to demonstrate different kinds of criticism.
Finally, I took this revision as an opportunity to advance an approach to popular art as art. This edition, like the first, is meant to be exploratory and suggestive. I write in that spirit. A reader does not necessarily have to accept my particular faith-informed cultural orientation in order to find something of value in the prospective model presented here. You will have to judge for yourself the viability of my critique of the popular artworks treated in these pages and the cultural perspective they represent. Our society benefits from having people of various faith persuasions participating honestly and intelligently in the cultural conversation. I owe a debt of gratitude to a number of people. Rodney Clapp, for his editorial support and friendship, and Rebecca Cooper, Bobbi Jo Heyboer, and the Brazos team for their good and diligent work on this project. My thanks to Robert Woods for his helpful suggestions toward this second edition, my neighbors (and co-workers) Rick and Michelle Zomer, and my colleagues at Calvin College and especially in the Communication Arts Sciences department. The Calvin Media Foundation supported production of a three-part video/DVD series based on Eyes Wide Open for classroom use. Reworking the material for a different medium enhanced my own understanding of popular art. The Calvin College McGregor program provides opportunities for a faculty member and student to work together on a research project during the months of summer. Jennifer VanderHeide worked tirelessly with me on this revised edition. She did outstanding work, dazzling me with her reading, research, and editing skills. Jen, I can t say thanks enough. Donna, Michael, and Tara-I love you.
I NTRODUCTION
Individuals differ in their capacity to handle challenges to their faith, but each of us in our own way should endeavour to be both distinctive and culturally engaged.
John Coffey, Cambridge Papers
One of the favorites at the Museum of Modern Art s 2003 film series, The Hidden God: Film and Faith, was Groundhog Day (1993). It tells the story of Phil Connors (Bill Murray), an obnoxious Pittsburgh weatherman who is trapped by a Pennsylvania blizzard while covering the annual appearance of Punxsutawney Phil, a groundhog whose sight of his shadow predicts more winter to come. The next morning Connors wakes to the clock radio and Sonny and Cher singing I Got You Babe. He discovers that it s February 2nd again. This happens again the next day, and the next, until he learns his lesson, wins the heart of his producer, Rita (Andie MacDowell), and is released from the eternal cycle of repetition, as one reporter put it, adding, Of course, this being an American film, he not only attains spiritual release but also gets the producer into bed. 1
People from different faith groups all laid claim to Groundhog Day as representing their teachings. One scholar said the film perfectly illustrates the Buddhist notion of samsara, the continuing cycle of rebirth that Buddhists regard as suffering that humans must try to escape. A rabbi saw the film as an allegory, finding Jewish resonance in the fact that Mr. Murray s character is rewarded by being returned to earth to perform more mitzvahs-good deeds-rather than gaining a place in heaven, which is the Christian reward, or achieving nirvana, the Buddhist reward. A film critic for a Jewish publication read it differently. He said, The groundhog is clearly the resurrected Christ, the ever hopeful renewal of life at springtime, at a time of pagan-Christian holidays. And when I say that the groundhog is Jesus, I say that with great respect. A Catholic scholar argued it was a stunning allegory of moral, intellectual, and even religious e