Monday, November 20, 2006

Update to Studio 60

One of the comments I have been getting in regard to my review is that I didn't clearly state that this was a sketch about censorship and not really about Christ. That the writers were aiming at the censors who were trying to stop them from taking the Lord's name in vain. They can't understand why Christian values were being upheld by censors. Why should the network care about what would offend Christians? Because everyone takes the Lord's name in vain. And they used the Jesus character to show that even Jesus doesn't care about taking his own name in vain, so why are we censoring? And this is what offends a Christian because that isn't true. And that is where I came in. Now, go read the review with this context. You can see that the context doesn't really change my criticism of the show. They don't understand Christ, so I suggest they stick to targets they do understand because comedy is funny when there is truth (like when Harriet was trying to stand up to the executive and not break ties with a Christian group she had been associated with for years, the group canceled her appearance because they thought she wasn't going far enough, now that was funny because you know that something like that would happen -- sad, but with some truth).

Poke fun at Christians all you want, I don't care, in many respects we deserve it. But the point I made at the end of the article holds true, they need to turn around and poke themselves because they deserve it just as much as we do.

But leave Christ out of it because he doesn't deserve it.

Now, if we discuss anything, let's discuss their view of Christ because their view of Christians isn't the point of this review.

And I should make myself clear on one final point, even though this show drives me crazy, it doesn't drive me crazy because it's a mirror. I believe the portrait they point is skewed and doesn't reflect me at all. They drive me crazy because they think they know us but they don't.

Tags:

3 Comments:

  1. Pamela said...
    I've quit watching alot of tv shows for that reason.

    Are they being more vindictive or am I just getting more sensitive?
    michele said...
    I've noticed an increased hostility. I believe that it's related to the fact that Christians are more involved in politics than every before and that our president is a Christian. I also think they think we want a theocracy and that we want to push our values on them. That was the main point of the program and has been from the start.
    Moonshadow said...
    I watched the show for the first time last night ("The Option Period") and noticed two things that are probably obvious to regular viewers:

    (1) the solemn and serious disposition of the comedy sketch writers! No wonder their show is doing poorly. They couldn't draft anything approaching The 2,000 Year Old Man given their languid demeanor. Spoiler: it may be a blessing that the writing staff left, so Matt can start from scratch.

    Speaking of Mel Brooks, his mockery of the Christian faith is always done right. Laughter with no hard feelings. There is a proper way to poke fun and, as michele has said repeatedly, a little knowledge helps. "Outsiders" like Brooks are capable of "getting it" whereas the writers of Studio 60 apparently are not.

    AND, (2) the bigger thing in my mind, an unflagging sexism. "So, it's true to life," my husband said.

    Half the program shows two women, a blond and a brunette, badgered and double-teamed by men.

    First, a pair of pesky dweebs tailgate the blond whom they suspect is on the verge of compromising her principles ... so they surrender their own to talk her out of it. How noble and chivalrous of them, but is the blond appreciative?

    Second, the brunette talks business sense to her reports who, for their part, respond with contempt, ridicule or otherwise ignore her. Then, her authority is completely undermined because at least one of them (hence, both of them? Men gossip too!) knows that she is getting fired near-term. As a result, their disdain is justified. In fact, how could they have logically treated her otherwise, knowing what they know?

    The scene between Harriet - what a name! - and Matt is almost touching except that the male's intuition, however improbable, hits upon Harriet's latent motivation: vengeance. Certainly petty, for a grown woman. Does this scene model male headship, Christians?

    NB: I doubt I'll continue to watch because it isn't worth staying up for. I liked the set very much, that's about it.

Post a Comment



Design | Elque 2007