Christopher Shawn Shaw

Christopher Shawn Shaw, filmmaker, actor, editor and writer from California shares with Christian Movie Connect host, Cheryl Ariaz Wicker about his films and career. Christopher is the producer and director of “Skip Listening,” the 2nd most-nominated short film at the 2010 168 International Film Festival, which had 12 nominations. He is currently working on a romantic comedy/satire feature, “Youth Group” with Christian comedian Thor Ramsey. Interview conducted at the 2011 Gideon Media Arts Conference & Film Festival.

Today’s Rant – Why are we not Changing the World?

If you’ve been in ministry for any length of time, you’ve probably asked yourself this question. Why isn’t the Body of Christ changing our culture and the world? If anything, it would appear that the culture is changing the Church. It’s a frustrating situation. No matter what you are trying to do in the Kingdom, including being a pastor, small group leader, youth worker, outreach leader or Sunday School teacher, there has never been a more challenging time to spread the Gospel. Why is this?

Why is it that most people three hours after leaving church cannot remember the pastor’s sermon, much less three days later? Obviously, the Bible says when we preach the Gospel, the Word never returns void. So there is always going to be some impact. But it is as if we are running against the wind in an ever ending battle with little or no results. It’s not as if I’m trying to make this worse or that I’m trying to ruin your day, but sometimes you just have to face the truth and ask the tough questions. Of course we want to be effective and reach people with the saving knowledge of our Lord. That’s what it’s all about.

So what is our main obstacle? The issue most people have failed to see or what I call the 800 pound gorilla in the room is today’s mass media culture? It is relentless. It is like a hurricane wind that continues to blow. The media culture never takes a day off. It surrounds us and engulfs us. No wonder we can’t remember what the sermon was about.

The media culture is more than movies or TV programs. It defines our culture, our society and our institutions. It creates its own reality, and it informs us what we should be thinking about. In fact, if we don’t find an answer to the influence of today’s mass media culture, we will continue to struggle in our ministries. Every Christian has a responsibility in solving this crisis. Unfortunately, most of us don’t recognize this. Let me put it this way. Have you ever worked outside on a hot summer day of maybe 100 degrees. It’s challenging and difficult, and you most likely get little work accomplished. What happens if you can turn the temperature down to 85 degrees or 80 degrees? Your productivity would increase dramatically. The mass media culture, just like a hot summer day, has the same impact on the effectiveness of the Body of Christ to proclaim the Gospel.

We will start to dramatically change the culture and the world when we recognize the issue we are facing is the mass media culture, and when we realize we all have a part in solving this solvable problem. What drives me crazy and what is at the core of today’s rant is when we continue to do the same things and expect a different result. Don’t you think it’s time to come up with a new game plan now that we know what we are facing?

Box Office Report: 'Think Like a Man' Trounces Competition With $18 Mil

The African-American themed comedy Think Like a Man grossed an impressive $18 million in its second weekend to stay at No. 1, while Jason Segel-Emily Blunt comedy The Five-Year Engagement came in No. 5 with a disappointing $11.2 million debut.

From Sony's Screen Gems, Think Like a Man has earned $60.9 million in its first 10 days of play, making it one of the most successful African-American movies of recent times and already pacing ahead of the lifetime gross of most Tyler Perry films.

Otherwise, the domestic box office was decidedly muted, with revenue down a steep 30 percent from a year ago, when Universal's Fast Five opened to $86.1 million.

After Think Like a Man, the race was close between Sony's animated 3D pic The Pirates! Band of Misfits ($11.4 million), The Lucky One ($11.3 million), The Hunger Games ($11.25 million) and Five-Year Engagement.

The biggest box office headline was overseas, where Disney and Marvel Studios' The Avengers rolled out in 39 markets, grossing a massive $178.4 million.

Heading into the weekend, Five-Year Engagement was expected to come closest to beating Think Like a Man in North America. The pic reunites many of the principals from 2008’s Forgetting Sarah Marshall, which opened to $17.7 million, including Segel. This time around, he teams up with Blunt as they play a couple enduring a long-term engagement.

Universal says its financial exposure on the R-rated comedy is limited, between a modest $30 million production spend and co-financing arrangement with Relativity Media.

Five-Year Engagement, which received a B- CinemaScore, skewed noticeably older, with 57 percent of the audience over the age of 30. Females made up 64 percent.

"Although it opened slightly lower than expected, the movie will make up ground in ancillary markets," Universal president of distribution Nikki Rocco said.

Sony and Aardman Animations' The Pirates cost in the mid-$50 million range to produce, and has already earned $63.7 million internationally for a worldwide total of $75.1 million through Sunday.

"Pirates opened right in our sweet spot domestically," Sony president of distribution Rory Bruer said.
The weekend's other new offerings -- Safe and The Raven -- came in No. 6 and No. 7, respectively, both doing modest business.

Safe, directed by Boaz Yakin and starring Jason Statham, debuted to $7.7 million after receiving a B+ CInemaScore. Safe, distributed by Lionsgate, was fully financed and produced by IM Global.

The Raven, opening to $7.3 million, was directed by James McTeigue (V for Vendetta) and stars John Cusack as Edgar Allen Poe. FilmNation and Intrepid Pictures co-financed and co-produced the film, with Relativity distributing.

For full weekend results, see below.

Domestic box office, April 27-April 29
Title/Weeks in release/Theater count, Studio/Three-day weekend total/Cume
1. Think Like a Man, 2/2,015, Sony, $18 million, $60.9 million.
2. The Pirates! Band of Misfits, 1/3,358, Sony/Aardman, $11.4 million.
3. The Lucky One, 2/3,175, Warner Bros., $11.3 million, $40 million.
4. The Hunger Games, 6/3,572, Lionsgate, $11.25 million, $372.5 million.
5. The Five-Year Engagement, 1/2,936, $11.15.
6. Safe, 1/2,266, Lionsgate/IM Global, $7.7 million.
7. The Raven, 1/2,203, Relativity/Intrepid, $7.3 million.
8. Chimpanzee, 2/1,567, Disney, $5.5 million, $19.2 million.
9. The Three Stooges, 3/3,105, $5.4 million, $37.1 million.
10. The Cabin in the Woods, 3/2,639, Lionsgate/MGM, $4.5 million, $34.7 million

'The Sitter' is Bombing Toilets. And Then it Suddenly Stinks.

Fleeting away from a remarkable film about the Yanks ('Moneyball' comes to mind early) as Peter Brand, Jonah Hill ('Superbad') lands to a movie about babysitting. There'd be humongous numbers of babysitter films and in this latter by director David Gordon Green is no different--it is recycled, unevenly funny, sentimentally perplexing but delightfully energetic. So many films that leaves you confused on whether or not you liked it, or whether or not you loved it really much. And so many films there are that channels an energy of a Tasmanian Devil, it whirls right there and make you go crazy. I guess somehow, 'The Sitter' is both the prior and the latter.

It was undeniably fun but critically disappointing that shamefully erodes a weirdly funny and an almost well-built mix of slapstick and wordplay.

Noah (Jonah Hill) is a middle-aged man with nothing of knowledge on besides being a couch potato and a resident sexual service provider volunteer to a horny young blonde whom he assumes as his girlfriend--automatically, the blonde thinks nothing the way Noah does. One morning, her mother asks him to go earn some money, one thing that I am delighted to describe as "one of the clumsiest part of the film, story-wise"; I mean, he's gotten into "deep shit" as he describes it eventually in the film and the only reason is he's such an indolent ass. Moving on, he goes to the Lewis' house to babysit three lovely children.

The ensemble of lovely diabolic kids consist mainly of a sprouting gay school heartthrob, a petite diva wannabe and an adopted son who likes to explode toilet bowls and mainly, blow everything that is breakable. Alongside Noah, the three pares on wheels to an uncertain destination where supposedly, Noah's "girlfriend" is at. Along the journey, in every stop over, be it planned or not, sure thing there is trouble. Now, Noah's irresponsibility is put to the test in which getting the three kiddos back home safe and sound is the only way not to fail--and oh, did I mention that gay, I assume-thugs are on the loose to wipe Noah's ass?

With a recycled plot and conventional elements, I have never been heads up to this comedy. However sometimes, in the most play-safe and been-there-done-that fashion, you'd find something special, yes, it might be like the chances of a needle in a haystack, but in 'The Sitter', there is something weirdly funny and satisfying about. Is it the eye-unsettling shine of a Jonah Hill as a comedic actor? IDTS. In this movie, his performance was downright predictable. In every punch line you'd get a major hint moments before, and then bam, less-effective are the punchlines.

One thing to evidence to conventionality of this movie is that in each manic and excessively energized sequences of hilarity, there sure'd be a moment, sometimes achingly shoehorned, of sentiments and sometimes its schmaltzy. I think what happens here is that like most other films, it tries to establish something that is reminiscent to a Spelbergian vibe--a movie that focuses deeply on a subject and/or gimmick and still finding ways to enter "heart" to it. Unfortunately, 'The Sitter' isn't a Spelbergian film. That's that. Prior to my latter question, I think the real stars here are the children actors. Their innate charm and genuine humor saves this movie from falling into some real deep shit.

Probably when Rodrigo blows one toilet bowl, someone must've left their crap there and then when it explodes, it just stinks up to the exosphere. That is 'The Sitter', a movie that is for, well, everybody who has loads of times to waste.

Rebel Pilgrim Productions Launches with Multiple Projects

On May 1, Rebel Pilgrim Productions will launch a new office in Cincinnati, Ohio with three full-time employees. The company also has a Las Vegas office. Joe Boyd, President, and Jim Nyberg, CEO, mounted a capital raise to prepare the company to produce five new projects over the next four years.


Rebel Pilgrim produced the multi-award winning poker-themed comedy Hitting The Nuts, which signed a digital distribution deal with Cinetic Media this month. The company's first theatrical release set for early 2013 is A Strange Brand of Happy, a faith-based comedy starring Grammy Winner Rebecca St. James and Academy Award Winner Shirley Jones.

The capital raise will allow the company to produce a made-for-television movie in 2013, and four additional projects over the next four years.

The company hired Brad Wise (A Strange Brand of Happy) as Chief Creative Officer and Isaac Stambaugh (Smells Like Community Spirit) as in-house Producer. They have leased what were once the original executive offices of the Proctor & Gamble Company in the historic Gwynne Building in downtown Cincinnati.
The company's website is www.rebelpilgrim.com.

How Do We Rise Up Visual Storytellers With A Missional Approach ?

So the question is how do we raise up visual storytellers who understand the power of story and have the ability to communicate it with a missional approach.

Whatever we do, we must begin early in their development - starting no later than middle school. To raise up these type of storytellers requires an intentional approach. I see it as a three-step process.

(1) We need to determine if they have an interest in media. What are their gifts or talents? Are they potential artists?

(2) We need to get them involved working on media and entertainment projects where they can have a hands-on experience.

(3) We must develop the messenger as well as the message. Do they have a calling as a media missionary? Could this lead to a possible career in media and entertainment, especially in Hollywood? We need to provide a program that will develop their talents and skills as visual storytellers. One of the most important things we can do at this stage in their development is to provide a mentor—someone who can advise them on the spiritual and practical aspects of being a visual storyteller.

One of the best places to start is in youth ministry. The youth pastor could play a huge role in helping to create tomorrow’s future visual storytellers. They are in the right place and time in the lives of those who could have a calling as a media missionary.

The youth pastor’s encouragement could make all the difference. Although most youth pastors have done a good job implementing the first two steps, they often lack the time or resources necessary to complete the final step. Media Missionary School wants to help by providing needed resources which are required to develop tomorrow’s visual storytellers.

I’m convinced media missionaries and visual storytellers do not happen by accident. We believe reading The Red Pill--The Cure for Today’s Mass Media Culture and The Media Missionary’s Journey—A Roadmap for Hollywood Success can provide the framework and foundation necessary for tomorrow’s visual storytellers. We want to create a network of mentors across the country who can help to develop the message and the messenger.

I encourage everyone to get involved. Perhaps, you work in youth ministry, or you have a career in media and entertainment. Your participation is critical. I suggest you look around to see where you can fit in. I’m sure that there is someone in your local church who could use your help and support. Think about becoming a mentor and making a difference.

Even if you are not in youth ministry, or you are not a professional in the media or entertainment business, your help is still crucial. I’m sure there is something you can do. Most young people are just looking for someone who will believe in them. You could encourage your youth ministry to be an active participant in developing future visual storytellers. We provide all the necessary information and resources on this website to assist you. Feel free to contact me for more information. E-mail me at harold_media@insightbb.com. I will be more than glad to help with anything I can.

NEWS: 'Cabin in the Woods' is coming to the Philippines!

FilmPolice is giving away free desktop wallpapers! Click on a picture, and
download!! :)))

For a time being, I've been skeptical about the film 'Cabin in the Woods'. I thought it's all 'Shark Night 3D' kind of stuff wherein a group of mad people plays around with people in their hands. I thought wrong, as the humongous amount of praises by critics rises to the surface, my skepticism submerges--no, I know for a fact, that now, whatever it may take, I shall watch the film.

I'd like to put this "news" post to a short one, so let's begin all the talking.

CABIN IN THE WOODS IS FINALLY COMING TO THE PHILIPPINES! According to a blog named Majogo, by date: May 9, horror aficionados will get the game-changing movie of the year. It is directed by Drew Goddard, a director that I admire, who also directed a movie called 'Cloverfield'. My interest went to hype when they announced that this film is made by the director, yes, and Joss effin'-Whedon!! He's the guy behind 'Toy Sory' and the latter 'Marvel's The Avengers'. He has undeniable eyes for film.

So, if you can't get enough of it yet, rape the replay button of the trailer, below.

'The Avengers' Sparkles to its Starkest Gleam and Lives Manic Energy.

For years of waiting and the exponential amplification of legions of Marvel fans in the process of production,  'The Avengers' is at the state of its fame where the screams and cheers could not go less deafening. I, too, can consider myself as one of the people anticipating the humongous Marvel event--that has been indirectly endorsed in almost all of the Avenger hero films ('Incredible Hulk'; 'Iron Man'; 'Thor'; 'Captain America'). In the gigantic-scale, evidently the biggest, Marvel film yet, the interest of the fans, no, the crowd went nuts when they figured (yes, you can count me in) Joss Whedon is directing. For a guy who made 'Toy Story' tear-jerking, 'The Avengers' seemed to be on good hands no less.

'Avengers' sparkles right there, to its starkest gleam with its dialogue and authentic humor and lives manic energy with ginormous set pieces, like the quantum of gamma of Tesserac.

Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson), head of the Intelligence Division called S.H.I.E.L.D. went for a wrong move when they dove miles down the ocean for a cosmic cube called Tesserac. The cube holds almost unstoppable gamma energy and is inexplicably and maybe magically transporting Asgardians, living in their own space and time, to ours. Worse things happen with the sudden appearance of Loki (Tom Hiddleston, perfect villain, besides Joker) who steals the cube to open a portal favorable to extraterrestrial-ish species come down on earth for some doomsday rehearsal. Automatically, Fury builds a group of "remarkable people" to put this plan to a red light.

One-by-one S.H.I.E.L.D. earns an "avenger". The Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) their resident spy, and Bruce Banner or Incredible Hulk (Mark Ruffalo) is picked up from a medical mission, or business, within the slums. Stark is Iron Man (Robert Downey, Jr., now more pleasant than ever) and Sgt. Steve is Captain America (Chris Evans), we all know that people. Thor is Chris Hemsworth who has unspoken sentiments towards his demigod brother. While Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner) is under compulsion of a Loki spell. The group of "remarkable people" must merge into one team, or otherwise it's our world that's at stake.

For an all-star cast, which is automatically intensely troubling to balance, Whedon seemed to know how to distribute shine to each of them evenly. Like what he does among the characters, he also sets out balance to the movie, collectively. One minute it is all-action and so riveting and along the way satiric sense is visible and the next minute you'd applaud the remarkably written dialogue that features humor of authenticity. That sense of balance stays right there consistently, and then exponentially increases intensity which decides the movie as an entertaining and infectious one.

As the conflicting well-written and stayed-to-themselves characters stayed in one room, the energy just blows up the roof and it almost shadows, in a good way, the refined and beautifully detailed 3D effects. Tom Hiddleston as Loki is never letting the film down and Hulk just got more awesomeness to offer--forgetting that I'm running a blog here, and terms like: "awesomeness" might be one for the lacking of eloquent and fluent words. Robert Downey, Jr. now even energetic is well, energetic, and funny, and lovable.

Lovable. All of the characters were lovable and in fact when Agent Phil Caulson (Clark Gregg) dies, it just breaks my heart. The action stunts were visually stunning. There are scenes when the crowds will just go, "whoa!", for exemplification, a scene in which Hulk catches Iron Man and slides down in an n-number of floors-story-building.

Visually impressive, verbally shining and collectively awesome. Those were the exact words I'd like to describe 'The Avengers'--a film for the Marvel aficionados and the ones that are not.

The Line in the Sand

If there’s one thing that we’re good at as Christians, it is drawing a line in the sand. The question is whether or not that’s what God wants us to do. Or are we doing it because of something we think we want God to do. To be honest, I think we do it because it gives us comfort. On one side is right. On the other side is wrong. This gives us a clear sense of how we should live our lives and clearly defines sin. But it’s just not that simple. We especially have problems when we apply this type of thinking to movies, music, television, dress, customs or other lifestyle choices. Sometimes the Bible is clear, such as in the case of murder, adultery or putting God first in your life. Other times, it requires the ability to listen to that still, small voice inside of us.

I had an encounter a few years ago that helps illustrate my point when we draw a line in the sand that makes absolutely no sense. I was producing a television program called The Zone which was airing on major cable and satellite outlets across the United States. The program had a live audience, and I was talking to a youth pastor about bringing his kids to be part of one of our tapings. Now mind you, this was a fairly large church located in the suburbs of a major city. This wasn’t in the backwoods. The youth pastor told me I was wrong to produce a program such as The Zone. And he had no interest in being part of it. He believed I was leading kids to commit sin.

We were playing contemporary Christian music. That doesn’t sound sinful to me. He didn’t have a problem with the lyrics. His problem was with the beat. He was convinced it would lead to the moral degradation of our society because it encouraged our youth to fornicate. I can’t make this stuff up. He had drawn a line in the sand. Does the Bible have anything to say about the style or the beat of any musical type. I don’t think so. Is this any way to engage the world?

Here’s another example. When I was in Bible college, during daily chapel, the President of the college made these remarks: He had stood on the corner in downtown Cincinnati and observed the coming and going of the daily commuters. After one hour, he had concluded that he had not seen one Christian walk by. He went on to make his point that our society was turning away from God. What did he base his conclusions on? What evidence did he see? His standard was on personal appearance. What type of clothes were they wearing? Makeup? Jewelry? Hairstyle? That was his standard for holiness. He drew a line in the sand. If you were on the wrong side, you were in sin. Did God ask him to do this? I suppose it makes our job so much easier if we can just look at somebody and determine if he or see is a believer. Perhaps, it gives us some comfort.

Final thought.

Yes these are radical examples. But I’m sure on some level we’re all drawing a line in the sand when it’s not necessary. I know we do it because we want to know what we have to do to be right with God. Just give me a list and I’ll follow it.

I know the Bible is our guide, and the Holy Spirit does instructs us. But we have to be part of the process to understand how to live our life in order to honor God.. And often, there is no clear line in the sand, but that doesn’t give us a license to do anything we want. I also don’t have any interest in creating obstacles for those who are seeking a relationship with Christ. Maybe this will give us fresh eyes when we think about movies, dress, and other such issues.

IF YOU TEXT IN THE THEATER, YOU'RE A DICK.

The glow of my nightmares...

Cell phones astonish me.  I'm proud to admit that I'm one of the last of a generation that didn't always have cell phones in the way that we have now.  Despite popular belief, I was alive for the Patrick Bateman cell phone and I definitely remember the super hero strength of Nokias and Nextels.  Unfortunately, I'm still young enough to be lumped in with a generation that would be absolutely clueless without a cell phone.  I'll be honest, the only phone numbers I have memorized are the ones I needed to have memorized in case the babysitter my mom hired for the night was psychotic. It's no surprise that cell phones, and more specifically, smart phones, are an incredible asset to society and our technological advances.  Unfortunately, we have become a little more than dependent on our all powerful cellphones and it's been intervening with aspects of our life where texting/googling/facebooking/tweeting/tumbling/angrybirding isn't acceptable. 

Many of you know that I'm an acting major at my University, but I also work as a House Manager for many of our productions and am one of the go-to people for delivering the friendly (yet threatening) curtain speeches to ask audience members not to text during the performance.  It's to be expected that in a collegiate environment there would be issues with students not following the rules but last year, the texting issue turned into an epidemic to the point where many professors are failing students taking theatre classes if they are caught texting during a performance.  I'm dead serious.  Just on my own watch, I've removed (and subsequently failed) over 20 students in the last year.  I just want to know, WHY AREN'T USHERS IN MOVIE THEATERS DOING THE SAME?! Honestly.  Do your fucking job.  I haven't been to a movie theater in the better half of a decade where I actually saw an usher do more than grab a ticket stub and open the door when it was over.  This lack of attention has given audiences this sense of freedom because there's no one telling them they're wrong.  Audiences are left to fend for themselves and if anyone has witnessed a scuffle between audience members, it becomes a giant fight on the internet.  Name calling, slurs, and Lord of the Flies-esque conflicts occur...and unless someone gets off of their ass to complain to the usher sitting outside the theater, nothing happens.  That's another thing, why the hell are people getting so defensive when asked to put your phone away?  If there were actual ushers/house managers enforcing the rules of keeping the cell phones in your pockets and your hands out of your partners, I think going to the movies would be far more enjoyable for everyone.

"Excuse me, you're rude...and who the hell still uses phones like that?"

IMAX’s CEO Greg Foster told Deadline that he seemed to like the idea of relaxing the absolute ban on phone use in theaters. He stated that his 17 year old son “constantly has his phone with him,” he says. “We want them to pay $12 to $14 to come into an auditorium and watch a movie. But they’ve become accustomed to controlling their own existence.” Banning cell phone use may make them “feel a little handcuffed.” I'm sorry, but exactly what in the hell are you on?  You may be the CEO of IMAX, but do you actually sit in the theaters and watch how your audiences interact?  They're not NOT going to the movies because they can't text, they're not going because it's too damn expensive.  I can buy a fifth of Vodka and watch Netflix and eat whatever I want and lay slovishly on the couch for the same price as going to a movie these days.  A commenter on the deadline page wrote: " In 1962, a kid could buy a ticket for a matinee for $0.35. In today’s dollars, that same ticket would be $2.63. Only it’s not. It’s $10-$13. Do you know what $10 today would have been in 1962? It would have been $75.76"   

Greg Foster is only promoting this idea because he wants a thicker pocket, not because he actually cares about the status of the theater.  If he did, he'd understand that texting in the theater is abysmal and we should be teaching these ungrateful little snots some manners instead of catering to their poor behavior. Another issue I have with Foster's statement is “But they’ve become accustomed to controlling their own existence.” Controlling your existence?!  You live at home, your parents make your food, and you're not even paying the god damn bill for the miniature computer sitting in your palm riddled with improper uses of the word 'you're' and nudes of your underage ex girlfriend.  I hate to break it to you, kid, but sometimes you have to play by other people’s rules.  What is so god damn important that you feel it necessary to be using your phone?  Movies are supposed to be an escape from reality, and people are deeming it acceptable to keep dragging it right back in.   It honestly makes me sick to know that instead of holding these brats accountable for their actions, there are big wigs in the movie industry that would rather roll over and continue on giving these kids a false sense of entitlement.  Keep it on up, Hollywood.  You're just helping Maury Povich further his career with your constant enabling.

Proper punishment for texting in the theater.

I don't know about you, but I think movie theaters should spend less time focusing on getting the unappreciative douchers into the theatre and instead concentrate on those that will actually enjoy the theater experience.  Sell alcohol in the theaters for 21+ showings, offer kettlecorn, lower the prices of movie candy so we'll stop smuggling in our own in our bras and instead buy yours, clean the god damn floors once in a while, and stop reserving more than one screen for a film just because Adam Sandler is in it.  Seriously, I couldn't see DRIVE in theaters because the one closest to me thought that Jack & Jill was a better option.  The biggest problem of the movie theater experience these days has less to do with the audience and more to do with the theater staff themselves.  I hate to say it, but you've created your own monsters.  Do your part and tame the beast yourselves.  

Also: God Bless The Alamo Drafthouse.

What are Images?

Images are pictures. However, in our culture, pictures have become tools used to elicit specific and planned emotional reactions in the people who see them. Images are created to give us pleasure when we watch them. They are also created to make us feel anxious. Images work best when they are vivid and emotionally saturated. For example, the American flag depicts very powerful emotions. The flag works as an image because it suggests a long list of stories and myths that are buried inside of us. Picture images that evoke deep memories can be very powerful and also very spiritual. By calling up these deep emotions and memories, today’s image makers are using images to take on new meaning and have created new myths that are shrouded, often deliberately, by those deeper memories.

The New Myths

Traditionally, a myth has been defined as a story or idea that helps to explain customs of a people group or society in general. Myths are the motivating stories or ideas that help to define cultural practices. Often they motivate daily behavior.

The key to recognizing new myths of today’s modern media culture is to think of them as ideas that emerge from long exposure to certain patterns of images. These myths are unconvincing unless you think of them as emerging from a huge array of images, which come from many sources, including advertising, entertainment and news.

Today’s images must be read on two levels in order to understand how new myths are created in our society. Myths are generally something that is not completely true but are accepted by society as truth. For example: your body is not good enough; the good life consists of buying possessions which cost lots of money; and happiness, satisfaction and sex appeal are readily available at the next consumer purchase.

First, we have an immediate emotional response wherein we recognize, for example, the image of a flag, a cross, a sunset, or a house, which leads us to react in a way that taps into our inner emotions, past stories and experiences.

Second, we view that image within the context of hundreds of other similar images. By doing this, the new myth that the image is communicating is clearly seen. Otherwise, it cannot stand apart because it would be obscured by powerful stories and the emotional connections that are used to sell the image.

'The Lucky One' is Out of Luck.

Nicholas Sparks' novels' tear-jerking formula, his literary skills are of undeniably stunning fashion, for me works in degrees of fluctuation and variety. Sometimes, you feel, as the ending credits roll, it does work, and rest of the times, it does not. It's an ironic thing because in my own experience, having myself inexplicably drawn to his paperbacks (I'm an emotional dude, sometimes. I think he does make me excessively sentimental, with no certainty if it is the book, or how he just made it), his books are evidently feeling like a movie disguised as a reading material. They're as though a movie turned-to-page-turners, rather than a book adapted to a movie. One thing is certain though, Sparks is as if flipping coins, pushing his fortune to the limit, and in his latest, "The Lucky One" is out of luck.

Definitely not "The Notebook" or "Message in the Bottle" or "Nights in Rodanthe" kind of good, "The Lucky One" is about Logan Thibault (Zac Efron, "Hairspray"; "Charlie St. Cloud"), a US marine sergeant (I'm still not convinced that he's fit for this marine role) who is saved by a lost picture in the desert-scape battlefield. He steps in to reach for the photo and take grip on it, as the face of the girl reveals, there be an explosion behind him that could have killed him if it weren't for the photo. Since then, Logan vowed to himself that he's going to find the girl in the photo, to thank.

Finding the "mystery" girl wasn't much of hard work. With the power of internet, he'd found Beth (Taylor Schilling, beautiful actress), the girl in the picture. Soon enough, as Sparks' formula is adhered, we get to witness how the two become intimate to one another. However, if we're adhering to the convention of a Sparks paperback swoon-fest, we'd also figure that something bad is going to happen--tragic, even. And yes, I'd make sure there is. Which isn't worthy to spoil.

Among all of the adaptations, 'The Lucky One' seemed to be the weakest link, and yes, I include the Miley Cyrus blah-blah Sparks movie about endangered turtles and the disappointing Channing Tatum film about well, him, and Amanda Seyfried. It desperately tries to shadow its flaws by its beautiful casts (Taylor and Zac). Efron, undeniably well-built, but still not convincing me as a marine, is sometimes more beautiful than his on-screen love partner. Efron and Schilling weren't a problem, they played well in this swoon-fest about, I don't know, luck?

That's the problem, I can't seem to understand what the movie desires to send to the audience. I even once thought that TLO shadows logic by love. Flamboyant because camerawork and photography were stunning, while the plot struggles from gaping holes. Hicks, working behind the camera is a good director. He directed "Shine" which earned an Oscar. It is a puzzling thought how he'd end up with this pile of cliche. Schmaltz you sure to encounter in this swoon-fest. Excessive, that is.

What I predict is that this is a money-maker yet again for Warner Bros. Pics, having a face like Zac Efron's on front row will sure earn you TONS of money. Especially when his shirt is taken off and doing a little squeezing-his-butt-action is involved (my girl readers, you can faint, it's okay).

Disconnecting the Cable

I have worked in the media and youth ministry for years. I wish I had a dollar for every time I’ve heard a parent tell me that the solution to solving negative media influence was to disconnect the cable box. They were convinced that their kids were now protected from the evil influence of today’s media. It’s a nice fantasy. Perhaps, it might help you to sleep at night, but it doesn’t work. Disconnecting the cable box is not the answer.

Media influence is everywhere. In fact, it’s led to a media culture where media and culture have combined a force that is capable of creating its own reality and truth that we accept as normal. If you think about what I have written, it can be an unsettling feeling. You could run to a bunker, but of course that’s not the answer either. It used to be much simpler before the age of mass media

Back in the 19th Century, most people lived on farms and rarely traveled more than twenty miles. They had little or no contact outside of their immediate family or community. Media influence was practically nonexistent. But when people started moving to the big cities, everything changed. Now we are forced to deal with it whether we like it or not.

The first step is to recognize that media does influence us, often in subtle and sometimes not so subtle ways. But the key to understanding media influence is to think of it as a process that occurs over time and takes place through five distinct levels.

Level I – Direct Contact. Is there any question that we are influenced by the movies, music and television programs we view and listen to?. I can offer you study by study about media influence. But here’s the best example that I think we all can relate to. Advertisers spend billions of dollars to convince you to buy their products and services. Who in their right mind would spend $3 million on a 30-second spot in the Super Bowl if it didn’t work? Most people don’t want to believe that they are being influenced by the media. But the facts don’t lie.

Level II – Indirect Contact. You and I are influenced by the people around us—our friends, relatives, co-workers, neighbors, etc. The people you know have been influenced by the media just as much as you’ve been. Chances are by movies and other forms of media that you have not directly been exposed to; therefore, you will be influenced whether consciously or unconsciously by the people you come in contact with. The important thing to remember is much of the media influence in your life will come from sources other than you being directly influenced by consuming it firsthand.

Level III – Institutional Contact. We are influenced by people we will never meet. How is this possible? This occurs through our institutions—schools, churches, government, business, and the media in general. Nothing exists within a vacuum. Our institutions are influenced by you, the people you know and the people you don’t know. Our institutions are made up of embedded values that develop over time. For example, our schools in some cases are changing text books and may be in the process of rewriting or erasing history. There has been a big controversy over this recently in Texas. But does history really change? By changing history, we change what people think as truth. Just because someone doesn’t have the same view, it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. And whose version of history are we talking about? For years, the media has questioned and continue to question the role that Judea-Christian values played in the founding of our nation. Today, that view is being reflected in what is being taught in our schools.

Level IV – Cultural Contact. You, the people you know, the people you don’t know and our institutions eventually form our cultural framework. Culture is more than just going to the opera. Culture helps to define our beliefs, attitudes and behaviors. We soon understand what’s important and what’s not important by their inclusion or exclusion. We take our cues from culture, and culture takes its cues from the media.

Level V – A Shared Consciousness. Culture eventually leads us to a shared consciousness, a collective way of thinking. Think of it in this way. We are wired and programmed to think in a certain way by the values and principles the culture believes are true. Our myths become reality because the media has the power to influence you, the people you know, the people you don’t know, our institutions and our culture.

Our collective consciousness leads us to an understanding of what is right or wrong. For example, why do men and women use separate bathrooms? We know instinctively that it is wrong for a man to use the women’s bathroom or vice versa.

Although, this concept is cut and dry, others are not. As a result, our collective consciousness has led us to some disturbing trends in the past few years. Our media culture is teaching us that truth is relevant. You and I, therefore, must now determine our own truth based on our circumstances and situation. The collective consciousness defines truth as a moving target. It is not consistent. This is in conflict with our Judeo-Christians principles where truth is defined by God’s Word.

Another example would be that our shared consciousness has embraced the importance of consumerism and materialism. We are defined by the things we own. Remember the car commercial that goes something like this: the things we make, make us. The products we now use are an extension of our lifestyle. We are the products, and the products are us. How did we get to this point to believe and accept such things? It’s very simple. The media culture is shaping our worldview and our shared consciousness.

Bottom Line: There are no easy answers to media influence. But pulling the cable box, dismantling your satellite, or dropping out of society is not the answer. Begin paying attention to what you see and hear on television, especially the commercials. Look for media that supports and embraces a positive influence which can lead to positive change in you, the people you know, the people you don’t know, our institutions, our culture and, ultimately, our shared consciousness as a people.

If you want to research this subject, check out my book, The Red Pill, The Cure for Today’s Media Culture. I have spent several years researching this topic.

http://www.amazon.com/Red-Pill-Mr-Harold-Hay/dp/1456566091/ref=sr_1_10?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1298483630&sr=1-10

From The Page To The Big Screen

By Cheryl Wicker
Christian Movies Examiner

Best-selling author Richard Paul Evans is no stranger to Hollywood and is best known for “The Christmas Box” that was also made into a movie of the same title in 1995. The made for TV movie starred Emmy-award winning actor Richard Thomas and Hollywood legend Maureen O'Hara. To date, over 14 million copies of all his books are in print with “The Christmas Box” itself selling 8 million copies.

Evans, a former advertising executive, transitioned into the writing world in 1993 when he decided to self-published a novella titled 'The Christmas Box' simply because he couldn't find any publisher or agent willing to help him out. It was a book about a parents' love and the true meaning of Christmas. Two years later, the book reached the top position for both paperback and hardcover editions on the New York Times Bestseller list, sealing Evans' reputation as a bestselling author.

Evans believes in writing stories from the heart and wrote “The Christmas Box” specifically for his two daughters. “If had known my mother would be the only one to read the story, I would have still written it,” says Evans. “To let someone know that I understand their pain over losing a child is enough for me.”

The Utah-born author eventually wrote 18 novels, four of which have been produced as movies for television. Besides Hallmark's “The Christmas Box,” the other movies are “The Locket,” starring Vanessa Redgrave and also on airing on Hallmark, as well as “The Timepiece” starring James Earl Jones and Ellen Burstyn; and another Christmas movie, “A Perfect Day” with Rob Lowe and Christopher Lloyd.

Continue reading on Examiner.com From the page to the big screen: Getting to know Richard Paul Evans - National Christian Movies
Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/article/from-the-page-to-the-big-screen-getting-to-know-richard-paul-evans#ixzz1sq81241p

HOW NON HORROR AUDIENCES AT THE CABIN IN THE WOODS HAVE PROVEN HORROR NEEDS A FACELIFT

HI: 

THIS CONTAINS MILD SPOILERS FOR 

THE CABIN IN THE WOODS. 

YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED. 

The horror world has been doing nothing but gleam about the little darling that is The Cabin In The Woods, and with good reason. (I also need to point out that anytime I say the title of the film, I sing this song.) It's no doubt that this film is undeniably the best mainstream horror film to come out in nearly a decade, and has shot up to horror fans' top ten lists with a raging force.  My good pal Johnny over at Freddy In Space has been doing a bang up job of covering and analyzing everything associated with the film, and I think that before you divulge into my rambling, his opinion is well worth checking out.  Anyway, back to the point of this article.  There have been tons of reviews flying around all of the media outlets, but they're all written by three different types of people.  Horror journalists, general film critics, and hyperactive teenagers with an internet access would appear to be the major voices when it comes to reviewing this film.  Now I'm not discounting any of these opinions, but when it comes to determining the success or failure of something that is determined solely by opinion...we must take into account those that are unbiased.  Horror fans are undoubtedly going to geek out over this film because it was a fanboy fantasy delivered on a silver fucking platter.  What about the non-horror folk? Doesn't their ticket money matter as well?

As much as I'd like to believe that the sole purpose of horror films being made is to present something to appeal to the fan, we all know it's a load of poppycock.  Films (regardless of genre) HAVE TO MAKE MONEY.  You could have the best horror film in the world but if only horror fans like it, it is going to flop. Plain and simple. Film companies thrive off of those date night ticket stubs, and the "too young to drink, so what else are we going to do" aged young adults with minimum wage jobs but Mom and Dad still paying for their survival.  That my friends, is a FACT.

Tonight I was lucky to experience something that most of my horror bretheren aren't as lucky to endure.  Horror fans are a breed of their own and we tend to stick to our own kind when it comes to satisfying our livelihood's horrific desires.  However, I've got a best friend I met back during my bitchin' child beauty pageant days that was willing to venture off into the depths of the sticky floored cinema under the pretenses that I'm showing her something that will scare the tan lines right off of her hips.  I have to say, mission accomplished.  As much as I had great joy feeling her jump out of her skin and watch as her hands shifted from squeezing the arm chair to covering her mouth in pure disbelief, I learned more from watching her reactions than I did from the film itself.  Everyone keeps talking about how this movie is so "original".  Okay, yeah, TCITW is original in comparison to the remake craze Hollywood seems to be on, but TCITW is the furthest thing from original.  All it did was pull a SCREAM/Behind The Mask and get super meta with a twist (one that wasn't even reserved for the ending).  Now. That being said. Here's a few things I learned from watching the reactions of a non-horror buff.

I) MUSIC HAS GOTTEN TOO PREDICTABLE:  Everyone knows that half of the battle of establishing fear is creating the atmosphere.  Psychology has proven that we associate what we hear with what we believe is a present danger.  For example: there's a reason that we know the shark is going to attack in JAWS, that Michael Myers is just around the corner in Halloween, that there are stab wounds occurring in the shower during Psycho, or the lack of sound while the body floats in Resident Evil triggering us to expect it to move.  Music is an extremely powerful entity and horror is quite possibly the king when it comes to utilizing and exploiting that power.  That being said, we're beating the same dead horse over and over and over again.  Knowing where all of the "jump scares" were going to happen in this film, it gave me the opportunity to people watch and giggle at the impending shocks they all seemingly knew were coming (even if they weren't).  Just because the strings began to crescendo and hit fermatas on the higher notes, the entire audience began to cringe.  It's almost Pavlovian at how we've all been conditioned to react to violins in horror movies. Granted, I understand that the reason we use this formula is because it works, but maybe we should experiment a bit and figure out another way to use sound to our advantage.  The use of Vassy's "Desire" during Jules' drunken cabin dance in front of the fire was arguably my favorite use.  The bass line pumped from an exterior shot of the cabin and resembled somewhat of a frantic heartbeat.  It immediately put me on edge as well as the rest of the audience, and the sigh of relief that came over when we realized she was merely dancing was a satisfying payoff.  I would gladly enjoy seeing more of that.

II) WEAPONRY NEEDS TO STEP UP ITS GAME: This one isn't even a criticism of The Cabin In The Woods, it's actually a HUGE compliment to it.  One of the initial thoughts that Zach Shildwachter and I shared after our viewing was how incredible the use of the bear trap on a chain was as far as a weapon.  It instills enough terror as bear traps are horrifying on their own, but to hook it to a chain and be able to use it like a damn lasso is one of the most genius concepts I've seen in a long while.  I had assumed that this was just going to excite a horror junkie after witnessing year after year of knife wielding madmen, but it would appear that non-horror fans crave unique instruments of torture as much as we do.  I am probably going to regret making this statement due to my hatred of the franchise, but I cannot deny the reality of SAW changing the face of modern horror.  SAW is arguably the most successful horror franchise of recent years and horror audiences have either spent the last decade in a womb of torture horror or growing up with torture horror reigning as the status quo.  To put it bluntly, knives and axes just don't do it for us anymore.  However, the simplicity of a one motion weapon still seems to have the prowess.  Audiences like the quickness of the knife, but the terrifying originality of a SAW trap.  Therefore, hearing two separate and VERY difference audiences audibly respond with "...is that a fucking bear trap on a chain?!" further proved this thought.  While the Chicago audience of horror nerds on opening night wailed in delight towards the weapon, the cornfield Macomb, IL audience was struck with fear upon its first strike.  Leslie Vernon also had the right idea with a scythe, and that film was also pretty damn well received.  Sensing the pattern?

III) ZOMBIES CAN SLOW DOWN: I'm not against running zombies or anything (okay, maybe I am) but I've noticed that whenever a movie features running zombies, there's a good chance that they're running will be utilized for bad camera work or jump scares.  Slow moving zombies have always been effective because they creep up on you, not jump at you without ever giving you a chance to run.  Running zombies give a cheap thrill while slower moving zombies have time to fester underneath you and put you in a constant state of paranoia.  When Marty stood outside the cabin as Patience Buckner hobbled her one-armed ass out of the forest and towards him, there was an audible reaction from the audience wanting him to go back inside.  Those sort of scenes cannot exist with fast moving zombies because they'd be heard.  That goes back to the predictable music argument.  Marty turned around because he "thought" he heard something, but Patience had wandered into the shadows and he couldn't see her.  Running (true) zombies do not allow for suspenseful scenarios because they'll be too easy to see and hear.  Now, films like ...28 days later have found ways to use quick "zombies/infected" but we must also accept that a good portion of their screen time is used to jump out and spit blood all over someone or with a quick attack.  Audiences attention spans may be slipping, so the goal is to keep them on their toes with quality, creepy, continuous moments, not bombard them with jump scares.

IV) WE CAN STOP DUMBING DOWN DIALOGUE: I don't know what Joe-Blo Hollywood exec. decided that the only people watching movies have the IQ of a lima bean, but we need to stop treating the dialogue in horror films like junior high banter.  Do you want to know which jokes in this film got the biggest laughs? The ones that required actual cognitive process.  Of course there were some chuckles with the stoner jokes, but the pop culture references and intellectual dick jokes got the strongest reactions.  I want a T-Shirt with "husband's buldge" written on it.  They could have very easily said "erection" or "boner" BUT THEY DIDN'T.  They used a terminology that fit for the time of the diary and was still wildly entertaining.  I even heard audience members during the reading of the Latin using their high school semester of Spanish class skills to figure out what he was saying.  Audiences aren't nearly as idiotic as we'd like to believe, and they're clearly happy when the filmmaker never insults their intelligence.  Seriously, if I see one more zombie movie where the characters have no idea what to do with them, I'm going to snap.  They're characters, yes, but they're still human beings capable of understanding the world around them.  It's the 21st century, if you think characters haven't heard "aim for the head" once in their life, you're a damn fool.

V) ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES ARE A GOOD THING: This is going back to the short attention span thing, changing the environment every once in a while is a good thing.  Give the audiences something else to look at, and DEFINITELY change the lighting.  My movie date was discussing how much she enjoyed the contrasting scenes between the facility and the cabin, as it gave her time to process and wonder.  By changing settings (especially in the manner in which Cabin does by showing bits of the other setting in the background) it gives the audience a conflicting state of mind in that they want to pay attention to what is in front of them, but they are driven mad with wonder as to what is going on in the other setting.  By having layers to the storyline, it keeps the audience engaged to more than just what they're being spoon fed.  Audiences can think for themselves and the DO have imaginations...let them play.

VI) COLOR INSIDE THE LINES: While there are plenty of things that could use a change, the most important thing is that we remember our roots.  There's a difference between being predictable and sticking to the rivers and the lakes that you're used to.  This film exposed the formulaic existence of horror films BUT presented them in an entirely different manner.  Whedon knew exactly how to tickle our fancy with just enough of a meta factor to entertain us but with enough variety to keep us from getting bored.  It's like having a twist ending, but without the poor execution and dissatisfying results.  My movie date kept trying to ask me what was going to happen next and thought she had it all figured out within the first fifteen minutes (including the death order) but LOVED when she was proven only half-right and the other half was from a completely different ballpark all together.  THIS IS WHAT WE NEED.  Stop trying to do something uber new or uber unique because chances are you're going to end up with a different for different's sake style of film that will have the aura of a pretentious collegiate liberal arts piece.  FIND A BALANCE BETWEEN NEW AND OLD.  Or just go old, vintage never goes out of style (I'm looking at you Ti West).