Handling religion in movies: “Footloose”
Steven Zeitchik and Amy Kaufman at “24 Frames” (LAT) ponder how the remake of the current release Footloose differs from the original version in 1984. They point out several key changes specifically regarding religion that appear to have been made to appease conservatives.
Some key excerpts:
If that seems like the musings of film bloggers with too much time on their hands, just take Rev. Shaw Moore, the preacher who serves as the film’s dance-hating, fun-killing bad guy. In the Dean Pitchford-penned original, John Lithgow incarnates Moore as a fire and brimstone tyrant, someone who fulminates that rock ’n’ roll is a pestilence and calls dancing pornography. (His strict views only soften at the end of the film — but even then, only because his hands are tied.)
Dennis Quaid’s Moore, by comparison, is a teddy bear. Sure, he offers up some strict sermons and doesn’t like dancing. But he’s basically a decent guy who has some misguided ideas.
The original also makes a point of drawing Ren’s uncle, whom he lives with, as a judgmental Bible-thumping type who doesn’t have Ren’s interests at heart — not exactly a favorable portrayal. But in Brewer’s version he’s just a likable guy who stands up for his nephew.
There’s an even more significant change when it comes to the origins of the dancing ban. In the first movie there is a clear, and clearly unsympathetic, reason: music and dancing lead to flaming sin. But that gets seriously tempered this time around: The ban arose after a number of teenagers died in a car accident on the way home from a dance. Fundamentalist religion is hardly trying to stop anyone’s fun, you see. It’s just there to protect the children.
— —
Basically, much of what a Christian audience might find objectionable in the film — some of which made the original so slyly provocative — is gone, and in such a way that there’s almost no chance the movie will run afoul of conservative audiences. Wormald even said that “we’ve showed [the film] in the Bible Belt; they love it.” It’s hard to imagine any actor promoting the original making the same claim.
— —
Brewer acknowledges that this was all semiconscious on his part. “I didn’t really feel like this was the time to demonize faith in terms of the narrative,” he told 24 Frames. “I didn’t feel like it was important that this be about teenagers against God, because I don’t know if that is relevant today.”
“Teenagers against God?” I’m sorry, but that is simply a bad interpretation of the original movie. They weren’t against God, they were against the restrictive edicts of a narrow-minded religious world view. By stating they were “against God” suggests that the only way to be “for God” is to have a fundamentalist belief system — and that’s just plain wrong.
Here’s my read on the subtext of that comment: The filmmakers, presumably at the studio’s behest, decided they did not want to piss off the religious right, instead hoping that by softening the treatment of religion in this version, they could widen the target demo. Indeed the article quotes one of the movie’s stars: “[Kenny] Wormald even said that “we’ve showed [the film] in the Bible Belt; they love it.”
I can’t think of a comment that shows how far removed this version of Footloose is from the spirit of the original film than that. And does this reflect what we have come to? Filmmakers can only make movies that don’t dare upset people of a particular religious persuasion?
I admit I have an interest in this area. I majored in religious studies at UVA. I got an Masters of Divinity degree from Yale University. I was ordained in the United Methodist Church and served as a student or volunteer minister in churches in Connecticut, Virginia, and Colorado. I have always been interested in spirituality. Here’s what I would prefer: I’d like to see movies free to portray characters with religious beliefs and practices of all manners — from fundamentalists to atheists. All religions, all denominations. Good people, bad people, and everything in between. Movies portray politicians of all persuasions. Bankers, lawyers, cops. Every profession, the freedom to explore a multitude of types. I want the same freedom with religious characters.
How about you? How do you handle religious themes in your stories? And do you believe exploring conservative religious values should be construed as being “against God”?
For more of the article, go here.
Comment Archive