Nicole Kidman and the Golden Compass

[quote="Isolation, post:17, topic:267358"]
Well the sequels would have gotten more into the anti-Catholic sentiment. From what I've read in synopsis the books ends with the protagonists killing an archangel who has impersonated God and that God had been dead for a long time prior to that moment. Needless to say this archangel is apparently evil at least in the protagonists point of view, again I didn't look into it much. Also apparently the Magestrium which is obviously suppose to represent the Catholic Church in the mind of atheists is a constant villain through the books and ends up destroyed by the end of the series.

To be honest I'm glad the movie bombed and will most likely not be given a sequel.

[/quote]

It seems that the author of the books - a dedicated anti-theist (not just atheist) - has a very personalist view of God. He sees God as another created being, such as Thor or Vishnu. But that's not God. God cannot die, for if God died, (assuming He could) existence would collapse for God constantly sustains all existence. What this movie does is attack a non Christian view of God, a kind of ancient Roman/Viking/modern atheist view of God, as one thing/person among many other things - other things being us, planets, galaxies, computers, etc.

[quote="DaddyGirl, post:10, topic:267358"]
I saw Kidman completely nude on the Broadway stage a few years ago. ...
Not sure if you would consider these actions along the "devout" lines?

[/quote]

Are you referring to her appearing nude or you going to see her? :rolleyes:

Well, I can’t remember exaccccccctlyyyy…I would indeed be the kind to want to join her in nude-like solidarity and strip to my birthday suit. But I think it was winter, so I suspect I was wearing a warm coat.
:smiley:

[quote="adstrinity, post:16, topic:267358"]
One can look up where Nicole said that she wouldn't do that movie if it was against her faith.

The Golden Compass IS Athiest propeganda. Fans of the books were upset there wasn't more anti-God and anti-Catholicism in the movie.

Mark Wahlberg -- Yes, he's Catholic. He married his long time girlfriend (with whom he has 4 children so far) and he has a tattoo of a Rosary over his heart (which says, "In God I Trust")

hollywood.com/news/Wahlberg_chooses_nudity_over_love_scene_to_keep_wife_happy/11768692
Mark Wahlberg choses a nude scene over a graphic sex scene. It was his compromise.

thespec.com/news/local/article/634661--mark-wahlberg-embarrassed-by-his-early-fashion-choices
Mark Wahlberg wishes his younger self was more modest.

That being said, he DID take the Lord's Name in vain in, "The Happening."

[/quote]

I agree totally that just because one calls themselves Catholic does NOT mean they are "devoutly Catholic."

However, to be perfectly fair in THIS instance-------
The CHARACTER that Mark played in the movie took the Lord's name in vain, as per called by the SCRIPT-------\
Does not mean HE personally did.

I do understand one could make a case that he should have "refused" to say those lines out of conviction------but ultimately this depends on the actor's own belief in the context of the script and the movie. Some choose to do it, some don't.
I don't know if I PERSONALLY would have said it, but I'm nor MW.
I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt and am not willing to pass judgement totally on him.

Just my opinion.

As always.

[quote="DaddyGirl, post:10, topic:267358"]
These actors may have been baptized Catholic and call themselves Catholic...but they do not follow the rules the same way you do, so you will probably consider them that lovely phrase I see here often--"Cafeteria Catholics".

Walberg is currently producing a series on the porn industry and, of course, played a famous porn star in Boogie Nights. I saw Kidman completely nude on the Broadway stage a few years ago. Acting is acting and work is work but...
Not sure if you would consider these actions along the "devout" lines?

[/quote]

We should not judge others, but if their documented actions are contrary to the faith and they are public figures, it should concern us. Whatever anyone does in private is and should remain private, but to act this way in public sends a message. At one time we had celebrities that could legitimately be called good role models. Today, I don't see any in the movies. It is regrettable that Miss Kidman should appear in a movie with an anti-Catholic message.

Peace,
Ed

[quote="OrdinaryMelkite, post:24, topic:267358"]
I agree totally that just because one calls themselves Catholic does NOT mean they are "devoutly Catholic."

However, to be perfectly fair in THIS instance-------
The CHARACTER that Mark played in the movie took the Lord's name in vain, as per called by the SCRIPT-------\
Does not mean HE personally did.

I do understand one could make a case that he should have "refused" to say those lines out of conviction------but ultimately this depends on the actor's own belief in the context of the script and the movie. Some choose to do it, some don't.
I don't know if I PERSONALLY would have said it, but I'm nor MW.
I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt and am not willing to pass judgement totally on him.

Just my opinion.

As always.

[/quote]

A story should not override personal beliefs. The media company I work for has a reputation for being family friendly and does not use words or images that are grossly offensive.

In one case I know of, an actress was approached to play a part in a movie but the script required exposing her breasts. She refused.

The writers are the main culprits. The actors simply mouth the words, but they certainly know what the story is about. Acting is not all make-believe. Certain bad words should not be said and an actual exposed body part that should otherwise be covered is the real thing

Peace,
Ed

[quote="OrdinaryMelkite, post:24, topic:267358"]
I agree totally that just because one calls themselves Catholic does NOT mean they are "devoutly Catholic."

However, to be perfectly fair in THIS instance-------
The CHARACTER that Mark played in the movie took the Lord's name in vain, as per called by the SCRIPT-------\
Does not mean HE personally did.

I do understand one could make a case that he should have "refused" to say those lines out of conviction------but ultimately this depends on the actor's own belief in the context of the script and the movie. Some choose to do it, some don't.
I don't know if I PERSONALLY would have said it, but I'm nor MW.
I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt and am not willing to pass judgement totally on him.

Just my opinion.

As always.

[/quote]

You are wrong.

[quote="edwest2, post:26, topic:267358"]
A story should not override personal beliefs. The media company I work for has a reputation for being family friendly and does not use words or images that are grossly offensive.

In one case I know of, an actress was approached to play a part in a movie but the script required exposing her breasts. She refused.

The writers are the main culprits. The actors simply mouth the words, but they certainly know what the story is about. Acting is not all make-believe. Certain bad words should not be said and an actual exposed body part that should otherwise be covered is the real thing

Peace,
Ed

[/quote]

That's right!

I attended a women's retreat one week ago and one of the speakers was Father Chad Ripperger (FSSP). He has a one-strike and it's out mentality. If a movie, or song, or TV show uses the Lord's Name in vain once, it is bad, stop watching it & get rid of it.

He also said that there are certain sins that can be simulated; a guy isn't really getting stabbed to death, but, there are certain sins that CANNOT be simulated: taking the Lord's Name in vain is REALLY happening. Getting untastefully nude, swearing, and the like, these are things that the actor REALLY has to do.

One day all will have to give an account for their actions. If one choses to do something against any of the Commandments, no matter the pretext, they lose grace and will not be able to love God as much as they could.

[quote="edwest2, post:26, topic:267358"]
A story should not override personal beliefs. The media company I work for has a reputation for being family friendly and does not use words or images that are grossly offensive.

In one case I know of, an actress was approached to play a part in a movie but the script required exposing her breasts. She refused.

The writers are the main culprits. The actors simply mouth the words, but they certainly know what the story is about. Acting is not all make-believe. Certain bad words should not be said and an actual exposed body part that should otherwise be covered is the real thing

Peace,
Ed

[/quote]

I totally understand that, Ed-------believe me, I do-------

But what if the role by necessity requires you to use profanity----in the sense that culturally and historically, profanity is called for for a character for "accuracy's sake?"

Premier example----------GOODFELLAS----------

The movie deals with mafia people who usedo horrifying, evil things, all the whileusing profanity as verbs, adjectives, adverbs, etc. Including taking the Lord's name in vain.

It's like breathing for them-----second nature.

Now, would it REALLY be "realistic" for a movie about people like that to NOT have profanity in it?

Now, if one Christian does not want to take the Lord's name in vain in a movie, that's admirable and more power to them--------
But what about a Christian (particularly a Catholic) agreeing to do this movie----and to also to use profanity and the Lord's name in vain?

Is that person somehow a "lesser" Christian than the first?

Point to ponder..........................................

[quote="adstrinity, post:27, topic:267358"]
You are wrong.

That's right!

I attended a women's retreat one week ago and one of the speakers was Father Chad Ripperger (FSSP). He has a one-strike and it's out mentality. If a movie, or song, or TV show uses the Lord's Name in vain once, it is bad, stop watching it & get rid of it.

He also said that there are certain sins that can be simulated; a guy isn't really getting stabbed to death, but, there are certain sins that CANNOT be simulated: taking the Lord's Name in vain is REALLY happening. Getting untastefully nude, swearing, and the like, these are things that the actor REALLY has to do.

One day all will have to give an account for their actions. If one choses to do something against any of the Commandments, no matter the pretext, they lose grace and will not be able to love God as much as they could.

[/quote]

I tend to look at things from That POV-------------just asking a question and engaging in "what ifs."

Ultimately, folks are not necessarily "totally Good christians"---------everybody (including me) TRIES to be the Christian possible----sometimes one hits that mark, sometimes we don't----the point is, we keep trying to fulfill that goal daily.
Ultimately, God will judge our "devoutness" and whether it was ultimately achievable or not.

Just saying.

[quote="edwest2, post:25, topic:267358"]
We should not judge others, but if their documented actions are contrary to the faith and they are public figures, it should concern us. Whatever anyone does in private is and should remain private, but to act this way in public sends a message. At one time we had celebrities that could legitimately be called good role models. Today, I don't see any in the movies. It is regrettable that Miss Kidman should appear in a movie with an anti-Catholic message.

Peace,
Ed

[/quote]

Well, again...not sure why anyone is "judging" them. I must repeat, I for one am not.
I am pointing out that they are not the definition of "devout" in the way that the church and most people here would define that, and I merely wanted to correct one of the earlier posters on that....that they are not "Catholic" in the same way as you define it. They are contrary to the faith as you follow it.
Which doesn't cause others to judge them...but perhaps, I don't know, some on this site might judge them for that.
But they are, indeed, good people and in many ways, good role models--even if they are not Catholic in the way in which you would wish or want them to be.

[quote="OrdinaryMelkite, post:28, topic:267358"]
I totally understand that, Ed-------believe me, I do-------

But what if the role by necessity requires you to use profanity----in the sense that culturally and historically, profanity is called for for a character for "accuracy's sake?"

Premier example----------GOODFELLAS----------

The movie deals with mafia people who usedo horrifying, evil things, all the whileusing profanity as verbs, adjectives, adverbs, etc. Including taking the Lord's name in vain.

It's like breathing for them-----second nature.

Now, would it REALLY be "realistic" for a movie about people like that to NOT have profanity in it?

Now, if one Christian does not want to take the Lord's name in vain in a movie, that's admirable and more power to them--------
But what about a Christian (particularly a Catholic) agreeing to do this movie----and to also to use profanity and the Lord's name in vain?

Is that person somehow a "lesser" Christian than the first?

Point to ponder..........................................

[/quote]

It's not about being a lesser Christian, it's all about the movie industry today. I have some insight into how Hollywood works and it's not just a job.

I have watched as more skin, more profanity and more sexual situations have been included in movies over the last 40 years. The same with Television. It was a gradual process and it continues to get worse.

Take the TV show Dexter. The main character is a serial killer. It is not a scholarly documentary - it is an invitation for viewers created by writers and producers who want the public to experience depictions of people about to be cut to pieces, like that episode where Dexter revs up a chain saw for one. No, we don't actually see limbs fly off but I suspect that's next. We can choose not to watch it, but, as Christians, we need to point out that the "entertainment" industry is pandering to darkness, to a literal culture of death.

I would counsel anyone who is thinking of becoming an actor in Hollywood to reconsider. That fame and fortune may come at the price of you being treated as a sex object or you being brutally beaten and raped - to all appearances, realistically - in a movie or portraying a rapist.

I'm talking about the entertainment value of acting in a movie that promotes atheism as a Catholic, or in other movies where the line between good and evil are no longer clearly defined. Take Dirty Harry, it was strange to see a police officer just blow people away because the "system" was no longer working as he thought it should. To entice them into giving him a reason to use "the most powerful handgun in the world."

I monitor the media as part of my job -- all media. The word dark is common to books, movies and even comic books. I look at Entertainment Weekly and my stomach turns when I see what is being considered entertainment today. Not all of it but most of it.

Toward the end of World War II, American combat cameramen went as a group to their superiors. They had filmed the dead of both sides, including those missing limbs or heads or cut in half from an exploding shell. They thought the public should see what war was really like. The government turned them down, saying it would lower morale in this country.

There is a lot to be said for the Motion Picture Production Code of 1930:

artsreformation.com/a001/hays-code.html

Peace,
Ed

[quote="edwest2, post:31, topic:267358"]
It's not about being a lesser Christian, it's all about the movie industry today. I have some insight into how Hollywood works and it's not just a job.

I have watched as more skin, more profanity and more sexual situations have been included in movies over the last 40 years. The same with Television. It was a gradual process and it continues to get worse.

Take the TV show Dexter. The main character is a serial killer. It is not a scholarly documentary - it is an invitation for viewers created by writers and producers who want the public to experience depictions of people about to be cut to pieces, like that episode where Dexter revs up a chain saw for one. No, we don't actually see limbs fly off but I suspect that's next. We can choose not to watch it, but, as Christians, we need to point out that the "entertainment" industry is pandering to darkness, to a literal culture of death.

I would counsel anyone who is thinking of becoming an actor in Hollywood to reconsider. That fame and fortune may come at the price of you being treated as a sex object or you being brutally beaten and raped - to all appearances, realistically - in a movie or portraying a rapist.

I'm talking about the entertainment value of acting in a movie that promotes atheism as a Catholic, or in other movies where the line between good and evil are no longer clearly defined. Take Dirty Harry, it was strange to see a police officer just blow people away because the "system" was no longer working as he thought it should. To entice them into giving him a reason to use "the most powerful handgun in the world."

I monitor the media as part of my job -- all media. The word dark is common to books, movies and even comic books. I look at Entertainment Weekly and my stomach turns when I see what is being considered entertainment today. Not all of it but most of it.

Toward the end of World War II, American combat cameramen went as a group to their superiors. They had filmed the dead of both sides, including those missing limbs or heads or cut in half from an exploding shell. They thought the public should see what war was really like. The government turned them down, saying it would lower morale in this country.

There is a lot to be said for the Motion Picture Production Code of 1930:

artsreformation.com/a001/hays-code.html

Peace,
Ed

[/quote]

True indeed. :thumbsup:

I just feel that sometimes it is more "unreal" to omit certain aspects of reality than to leave them in. Just me.

But yeah-----the deterioration of movies having any sense of objective morality is a given these days. The Devil has done his work well. :thumbsup:

Yep. :(

Tragic and Sad. :shrug:

I am convinced that whenever a celebrity actually admits to being of a certain religion, the media use the adjective "devout" just because it sounds more serious. :p I've grown accustomed to simply ignoring the descriptor whenever I encounter it in the secular press.

The Wikipedia entry on the film quotes Kidman as saying: "I wouldn't be able to do this film if I thought it were at all anti-Catholic." So apparently, she does not see anything anti-Catholic about it.

I am not sure how it is possible to miss the anti-Catholic overtones of Pullman's series. :shrug: But at least it seems important to her to avoid anti-Catholic things.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.