A Response to: “Dexter: A Murderous Angel?”

This is a response to Gianni B’s post. It can be found at:
http://livintechnico.blogspot.com/2012/02/dexter-murderous-angel.html

I really wanted to respond to Gianni’s blog post this week for two reasons:

(1)    I needed an excuse to praise his great taste in television shows. True Blood, Entourage, and Dexter? Each one different completely different yet all equally as awesome. And if people cannot admit to tuning in every Thursday night to the guidos of Jersey Shore than they have a slight problem telling the truth.

(2)    But on a more serious note, I wanted to respond to his discussion of Christianity on television which he placed in the context of the sixth season of Dexter.

To borrow the pun in his post, I have to say that there are only a few shows “I watch religiously”. So when I heard that the sixth season of Dexter would be heavily focused on religious themes, like Gianni, I was also a little suspicious and hesitant. I really questioned how well the show’s writers would be able to integrate these Christian overtones to the already super gruesome and explicit storyline. There is no doubt that from a Christian perspective Dexter’s “pastime” was morally wrong. As Gianni also saw, I was surprised and really intrigued by how skillfully the discussion of religion was incorporated into Dexter’s struggle to define the “good”.

 (I thought this was a funny clip to include for all those who are fans of both The Simpsons and Dexter)

 This season of Dexter was able to accomplish what shows like The Simpsons attempt to do through parody. The Flander’s provide a commentary on what it means to be Christian. Through different means, Dexter was also able use different characters to initiate a season-long debate about religion, faith and the good. This was really apparent in the juxtaposition of Brother Sam (the career criminal turned preacher) and Travis Marshall (the devout Catholic serial killer who uses the Bible to justify his horrible murders). The use of both characters this season showed a tension between how religion and faith can be used and what it means to the individual person. Dexter is left contemplating this as well as how his own religion fits into this context.

I agree with Gianni when he says that this was a helpful example of how Christianity is still closely connected to most forms of popular culture. He argues that incorporating religion helps to open the mind of viewers who are reluctant see Christianity used in popular culture. While this is a good point, I think the use of Christianity in television serves a more interpretative and functional role. Using Christianity in this form of pop culture helps to create a form of debate. Like this season of Dexter, he was able to question his notions of the “good” and “right” in different ways (religiously and in his own serial-killer-ly way). In general, Christianity in television helps to frame various everyday and moral questions in the context of a discussion where different perspective can be explored.

Keeping up with the Christ-dashians

Before writing this blog post I tried listing every metaphor that could be applied to my relationship with television. I could not complete the task because it simply became way too extensive. I think that speaks to how television (at least in my case) has become such a constant. Whether feeding my crime-show addiction with a Criminal Minds marathon, letting my mind turn to mush watching the Real Housewives of Beverly Hills, foaming at the mouth to the Food Network, being lulled into the disillusionment of infomercials or simply having the comfort of background noise, the television is a constant and unfaltering companion. Like a person, it can be a source of comfort, conversation, argument, escape, education and much more.

Like the lecture regarding the use of Christ in films, the depiction of Christians on television also appears to be the result of great interpretation. Christian teachings, narratives and characters, are widely used to stimulate discussion within shows. Whether virtues are subtly conveyed or images are explicitly shown, Christianity is ever-present on the silver screen yet in highly subjective ways. The use of Christianity written into the characters and dialogues of shows is dependent on the discretion and objectives of screenwriters, editors, directors and others.    

Television shows like The Simpsons and 19 Kids and Counting paint Christian families, such as the Flanders and the Duggars, as extremists living as close to Scripture as they can. By depicting this lifestyle, producers are able to stimulate discussions regarding how faith is practiced.

Other shows like the recent controversial hit The Borgias attempt to expose the tension between the virtues promoted by the Catholic church and their own inability to resist the temptations of lust, wealth, and power (with a great deal of creative license).

In addition, a soon-to-be-airing ABC series is already under fire because of its title. GCB also known as “Good Christian [insert THE not so nice ‘B’ word here]” chronicles the lives of so-called “proper” Church-going ladies as they tempt men, backstab each other, and plot against “thy” neighbors.

All of these shows depict Christians, Christianity and Christian values in completely different ways. Whether it is placed in the context of a drama, comedy or even a reality show, religion is still closely tied to this form of popular culture. As shown above, it is sometimes featured in ways that is contradictory to what it purports to serve yet that is a part of the heavily interpretative use of religion in television. Many of the shows listed above are new series, demonstrating how the use of Christianity on the silver screen is still thriving.   

Response to "Superman Jesus"

This is a reply to Felicia P’s response to my earlier post. Both posts can be found:
Felicia P’s Post: http://305upinflames.blogspot.com/2012/02/superman-jesus.html
My Post: http://gospelaccordingtobuddychrist.blogspot.com/2012/02/jesus-ill-be-back.html

I really wanted to reply to Felicia P’s response to my earlier post from this week. The last argument she made by “playing Devil’s advocate” for Koslovic was really interesting and I feel like it is a great starting point for further discussion. Felicia and I both agreed on a number of issues apparent in Koslovic’s argument. The deficiencies of his extensive list as well as the issues that stem from it were our points of agreement. However, Felicia proposes an innovative answer to my question about why people would look for a Christ figure in many famous film protagonists through the use of such broad characteristics as those used by Koslovic. Felicia responded to this question by stating that Christ figures make it easier for individuals to connect with Jesus through a more relatable form. 

However, this raises some questions. I find her point easy to agree with because often our most favorite movies demonstrate some form of good conquering forces of evil. These famous heroes tend to have the most complex and tumultuous missions which make the stories so appealing. Relating them to Jesus seems natural and easy because of his own similar path.

 

Felicia’s statement “it allows audiences to be associated with their own ‘real-life Jesus’” really struck me. Maybe it isn’t so much actually Jesus that we are looking for in these characters but some indication that a hero’s struggle will always be validated by some other form of good. Perhaps we try to find this “Christ figure” because Jesus himself has the greatest hero we could ever recognize. At their bare bones, I feel like hero stories all follow from the same structure. Notions of courage, self-sacrifice, goodness, responsibility, love and peace have the potential to be in all great hero narratives. Jesus may just be the most recognizable hero which is why we feel the need to see him reflected in other protagonists. This may sound negative but maybe because he is chronologically first, he becomes the standard to which we compare other supposed “Christ figures” in film.

Jesus: "I'll be back."

Harry Potter
Frodo Baggins
Major Reisman
Luke Skywalker
John Connor
Spock
Jamal Walker
Walt Kowalski
Larry Daley
Harry Stamper
Batman
Superman
Optimus Prime

and… Charlie Brown

What do all of these seemingly unrelated characters have in common?
According to Koslovic’s model, all of the above fictional heroes represent a Jesus figure within film. I think this odd, mismatched group of heroes helps to illustrate the dangers associated with Koslovic’s list of Christ-like characteristics. Important questions are raised because of this…

What is added by having a Christ-figure? Does it change the overall experience of watching a movie? What is achieved by having a Christ-like protagonist? In many cases are characters intentionally created to embody Christ? Or has Koslovic just come up with such an exhaustive list of characteristics that any character can fit the mold?

I believe that Koslovic’s list is excessive and inapplicable. It places characters like Charlie Brown and Luke Skywalker on the same dimension in terms of Christ-likeness. Although they may have similar attributes, one is more of a Christ figure than the other. I think that by having a list like this, the ability and aim of finding Christ figures in film is actually devalued because almost every infamous hero fits into his model. Although at times there is an intentional effort to shape a character to fit this Christ-like image, I feel like most of the time it may be done unintentionally. Because Koslovic’s model allows both these groups of protagonists to fall within the same category, the effect of having a Christ figure is lost.

Take a look at the following video of a MadTV skit.

I think this is a funny portrayal of the contrast between Jesus himself and the so-called Christ figure, John Connor. The issue of labeling someone like John Connor “Christ-like” is powerfully demonstrated when Jesus simply says “You cannot go around killing people. It’s against God’s commandments.” How well does Connor demonstrate "Christ-likeness"?

In addition, what is the overall objective of being able to identify all of these Christ figures in film? While it is important in some cases, I really did not ever consider someone (or should I say ‘something’) like Optimus Prime to be a Christ figure until Koslovic’s model was applied. Did it help the Transformers franchise? Most likely not. Did it draw in more of an audience? It is doubtful. So then if we go out of our way to use this list of characteristics, almost every contemporary hero would embody Jesus in some way. This takes away from actual Christ-like figures in film.

While there most definitely are Christ figures that have been intentionally used in movies, I do not believe that every famous hero in film belongs in that category as Koslovic’s model allows.

A Response to: "Emotional Branding is here to Stay"

This is a response to Angela Cogliano’s post: “Emotional Branding is here to Stay”

Post can be found at: http://jesuschristthesuperstar.blogspot.com/

I think Angela did a great job illustrating how pervasive and powerful emotional branding is. Her example of Scotiabank’s recent advertising campaign worked well to demonstrate her argument (even though as a customer, I associate them with much more negative images of service charges, banking feels and non-stop bills). One thing that truly resonated with me while reading her post was when she mentioned how advertising has become less about the item and more about the consumer’s relationship to the brand. I believe emotional branding is a truly revolutionary development in marketing. To be honest, from a company’s perspective, placing more emphasis on the consumer-brand relationship would be a much more powerful way of increasing a profit base.

Take for example the following commercial:

If this video was stripped of all its Tim Horton’s logos, this would appear as a commercial advertising hockey as being a part of a greater “Canadian-ness” (which many people would say is already true). In this clip you can see how Tim’s attempts to do something more than just sell a cup of coffee; it attempts to sell a lifestyle. It isn’t an extravagant or luxurious one that we are familiar with seeing in other ad campaigns, but it is something that is familiar to many Canadians. In addition, having Sidney Crosby, who represents one of the most important moments in Canadian hockey history, reinforces their point. I think Tim’s is a corporation that has been hugely successful in employing emotional branding in this way. In my opinion, emotional branding is successful when the brand becomes a naturalized part of what they advertise to be. In this case, it is rare to see people in hockey stands or sitting around ice rinks without a double-double and a box of Timbits because it has become a natural part of our lifestyle.

In this sense, emotional branding not only plays with deeply personal emotions and sentiments but has the potential to completely alter how consumers interact with the brands that surround them.

"Love was created by guys like me...to sell nylons."

I won’t lie. I am every advertising executive’s dream. It only takes the newest indie song, a set of masterful screenshots, and some clever dialogue and I’m buying an iPhone. Ads have made me cry, they’ve made me laugh and some have had catch phrases that I frequently quote in day-to-day conversation (Ikea’s infamous “start the car” commercial, anyone?). Good, strategic advertising is an art form. There is no denying that tomorrow morning many of us will be on Youtube watching all the commercials from last night’s Super Bowl that were not played in Canada. Yet, stepping away from these overt examples of marketing, I think it is important to discuss how advertising can penetrate our lives so deeply.

In class, a few individuals presented the argument “this would not work on me” when talking about the effects of advertising. While I completely understand their perspective (a sports ad would not have me pulling out my credit card as fast as a lipstick commercial would), I think advertising plays a huge role in subtly generating and reinforcing standards by which we live our lives. Marketing uses many mythic structures to perpetuate common standards regarding success, sports, family life, etc, the list goes on. The ideas implicit in ads, create seeds of desire and bring us further into a culture of consumption.

The title of this blog post comes from one of Don Draper’s most infamous speeches. I think it truly demonstrates how the inner workings of marketing campaigns are far more complex than what is shown to us. This is a great illustration of how advertisers latch onto emotions and concepts that are common to all of us and assign a specific image that tempts us to spend. Evaluating this from the perspectives related to the study of pop culture and religion, would leave many suspicious and concerned.   

Religion and faith are something profound and personal to each individual. I do not feel comfortable knowing that marketing executives toy with these chords in order to increase their quarterly profits. This is one aspect of pop culture that has the potential to exploit Christian narratives and teaching mechanisms to increase monetary gain.  I believe that in the study of religion and popular culture, advertising can be viewed with great suspicion especially since the temptation created through marketing is in great conflict with Christianity.