Gosnell, the Movie

Leave a comment

I have something on my mind that I’d like to share my take on.

It’s the Gosnell movie.Gosnell_movie(1)_810_500_75_s_c1

I was curious how much money the movie earned so I asked Google the question and it sent me to an article on the Washington Times. Here’s the two opening paragraphs from the Times article.

It was a movie destined for failure — relying on crowfunding for its shoestring budget, garnering little to no attention among liberal media outlets and opening in only 673 theaters around the country.

Still, “Gosnell: The Trial of America’s Biggest Serial Killer” succeeded in its opening weekend at the box office, becoming the No. 12 film release last week. Its $1.16 million in ticket sales placed the film just behind “A Simple Favor” ($1.3 million) and just ahead of “Crazy Rich Asians” ($1 million), according to the Box Office Mojo website. The Washington Times

The first paragraph says it all. The producers could not find funding in Hollywood and had to crow fund the project. The liberal media gave the movie little attention and it only opened in 673 theaters. Star Wars: The Force Awakens by comparison opened in over 4000 theaters. Star Wars grossed over $250,000,000 million its first weekend while Gosnell movie made just over $1,200,000. Talk about David and Goliath; yet David was considered a success given the odds against it.

The question is why or better, why didn’t?

Why didn’t the movie receive hardly any attention and why was it so hard to fund despite having some pretty good actors lined up to play the parts?

The October 27th issue of World Magazine did an excellent job of detailing the “why’s” in its article titled, Shop Of Horrors by Megan Basham. I encourage the reader to follow the link to this excellent article and publication.

The first thing I’d like to point out is that the movie is about the trial of a serial killer.

Why is Gosnell a serial killer? The fact is Gosnell snipped the spines of living infants who were delivered live during an abortion. A mother also died along with scores of live babies. The primary issue was murder as opposed to the gross malpractice which was much in evidence. .

Actor/Director Nick Searcy (from the TV series Justified) went out of his way as the director and as the actor defending Gosnell to argue that race and religion played a role in Gosnell’s arrest. In other words, the producers went out their way to make the movie about the trial rather than be overtly pro-life and having to work through laws that sometimes allow abortion and sometimes prevent it-like when a baby somehow survives the process.

Perhaps the most revealing aspect of the movie came when it was admitted that Gosnell was sloppy in his procedures but no more inhumane of what took place in other clinics. Obviously, there are many other shops of horror. Perhaps the biggest horror story of all is the fact we are a nation that does not consider life in the womb to be life despite the rather obvious fact that it is.

That of course is what the liberals and their sympathetic media allies feared and continue to fear-truth.  Abortion takes a life; it’s simply of question of when during the pregnancy.

The story was told fairly according to the Washington Times and World Magazine something the liberal media will never do because abortion is their sacred sacrament and never may the actual truth be told.

Just consider how fast the Planned Parenthood scandal disappeared when it became known they were selling baby body parts.

fetus

Here’s my take…Conservatives who are pro-life will never get a fair shake by the left-wing media or their cheerleaders in Hollywood. We’ve come to the point where we are surprised when we can find a fair shake in publications like the Washington Times and World Magazine and in my opinion on Fox News.

So what can we do? For starters, we can support outlets that are fair and ignore the ones that are not. You know who they are.

Second, we can pay attention when someone like the producers of Gosnell make a movie that is fair and speaks truth.

Sadly, I missed the movie. It didn’t even show in my area and where it did show it was at a time that we could not make the trip.

My plan is to rectify that as soon as possible. The movie will be out on DVD so that’s one way to support truth. It will also be available through outlets like Netflix or Amazon Prime where it can be purchased for streaming or just to rent. Ether way you support those trying hard to get the message out despite the odds stacked against them.

This article appeared shortly after my initial post and is helpful since it comes from one of the producers of the movie. The Media Censorship of Our Gosnell Movie.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

The medium is the message_ and the movie Noah

4 Comments

Along time ago in a High School class that I no longer remember the name of I heard the phrase, “the medium is the message.”  The phrase has stuck with me for over 40 years probably because of my interest in communications and how various forms of communications can influence public opinion or perceptions.

I lifted this illustration from a wiki article to explain what that can mean:

–Likewise, the message of a newscast about a heinous crime may be less about the individual news story itself — the content — and more about the change in public attitude towards crime that the newscast engenders by the fact that such crimes are in effect being brought into the home to watch over dinner. —(Wiki source for quote)

The phrase “the medium is the message” was coined by a fellow named Marshall McLuhan and he wrote a book by the same title, a book, as I recall we had to read for that High School class. A more formal definition of what McLuhan meant by that odd phrase might be:

“The form of a medium embeds itself in the message, creating a symbiotic relationship by which the medium influences how the message is received.” (wiki link)

LOL

LOL

I no longer remember what illustrations McLuhan may have provided in his book but he could have used Leni Riefenstahl’s movie\documentary titled Triumph of the Will.

Triumph of the Will became a triumph of propaganda for Adolf Hitler and the Nazis but it did so because the medium of the cinema was masterly crafted by Rienfenstahl to rouse the German people to patriotism and to thoroughly embed the idea that the Nazis would lead Germany into a new age of European dominance (what would become the Third Reich). The film is a classic not for its resulting message (how the form of cinema functioned) but for how well crafted it was.

Period poster advertising Triumph of the Will in German. The film's imagery portrayed massive parades, heavy symbolism, military uniforms and rousing speeches from the 1934 Nuremberg Rally.

Period poster advertising Triumph of the Will in German. The film’s imagery portrayed massive parades, heavy symbolism, military uniforms and rousing speeches from the 1934 Nuremberg Rally.

The point is the way a medium functions is more important than it’s form (movie, radio, newsprint, etc.) because it can manipulate the message and thus steer people one way or the other.

Another example of the medium is the message might be Darren Aronofsky’s new film, Noah, starring Russell Crowe.

Aronsky by his own words is not a not particularly religious Jew who has claimed that the film is basically true to the account of Noah as found in Genesis. But as many have pointed out that is not really true given the distortion of the message by the medium. (Best review of the movie found here, by Al Mohler from Southern Seminary)

I have not yet decided whether I will watch the movie. I certainly will not pay for a movie ticket but I may rent it down the road simply out of curiosity and because I like Russell Crowe’s acting. Besides, it may result in more grist for my blog!

What I would expect to find is a story told through the considerable talents of Aronsky as a director. The story may even be entertaining and I confess I am looking forward to seeing the rock monsters masquerading as Nephilim as well as the special effects used to create a really big flood. What I would not expect to see or hear is an accurate message from the Word of God. Frankly, I’d be on the look out for any inaccurate message from a movie that is supposed to be biblical. In the interest of full disclosure I’d watch Roma Downey’s series, The Bible, with a similar critical eye but expect less distortion.

Evangelical critics have pointed out that the basic message of the film is that Noah is a vegan eco-nut in the movie and that God destroys the people of the earth because they are destroying the earth. I would consider myself a conservationist and certainly am not for the careless exploitation of the earth but I am also aware that God gave Adam (and mankind) dominion over the earth (Gen. 1:26).

Dominion means the subjection and management of earth’s resources for the benefit of the ones having dominion. We can argue all day about what that looks like but the bottom line is that God intended that man manage his earth and that as originally intended that management would be done in a responsible manner.

The reason it has not always been done in a responsible manner is because of the fall (Gen. 3:1-19) and by the time of Noah all that mankind did was evil all the time (Gen. 6:5). God destroys man except for Noah’s family (a total of 8) not  because of one evil (misuse of the earth) but for all evil and all types of human depravity that resulted from the fall. When man fell he did not just stumble, he fell hard and every part of man’s soul has been corrupted by the fall.

Genesis 3:15, called the proto-evangel teaches that God would provide a solution to man’s essential problem (sin, evil) and the story of Noah serves as part of the larger narrative that would eventually point to Jesus.

What Aronsky and his helpers have done is provide an interpretation of Genesis that they claim is faithful to the text. It clearly is not.

To be sure part of the motive is to make money and be entertaining but the other part may very well be a progressive agenda that is against fracking, big oil, whatever that means, nuclear energy, and for windmills and solar even though those resources are not reliable nor can they generate the power needed. One would think that the eco-nuts won’t be happy until we’re all living in the times of Noah as portrayed in the movie by being “one with the earth” rather than having reasonable dominion over it. I’ve heard that kind of propaganda all the way back to my High School days and the very first Earth Day which as I recall was May 1st, 1970.

So, the medium is the message and Noah is probably a well-crafted movie that promotes a particular message, a message designed to influence people and as such is a piece of propaganda. It’s also creative license that results in a horrible  interpretation of the Genesis story and as a result misses the main point of the story.

In that, we should not be surprised because there is no way Aronsky has ever had a course in biblical hermeneutics where by the student is taught to do his best to get the biblical message right.

If you chose to watch the movie understand that the medium is the message and in this case a horrible interpretation of what is taught in the story of Noah.

Drowning in Distortion_Al Mohler’s Review

I’m a Christian and I think “Noah” deserves a four star review (By a fellow named Matt Walsh and utterly hilarious)

A Doctor’s House of Horrors and Social Darwinism

3 Comments

A Doctor’s House of Horrors and Social Darwinism

One of the things I enjoy about World Magazine are the reviews. Movies, music and books are reviewed in each issue and while I cannot possibly read all the books reviewed the reviews do give me an idea of what’s new and what might I want to read.

Sometimes the reviews just provoke thought. Such was the case with Marvin Olasky’s (World’s Editor in Chief) Darwin and Beyond a review of Paul Johnson’s; A Portrait of Genius, a biography.

Olasky writes; [Darwin was a man] who brilliantly observed micro evolution within species of plants and animals, but reached too far by theorizing macro-evolution that he had not witnessed. And then parenthetically, (Darwin then went too far in theorizing about man-and by doing so provided fodder for racists and anti-Semites.)

Darwin observes micro evolution and makes a significant contribution to science. (changes within a “kind” to use the words of Genesis)

Darwin extrapolates micro evolution to macro evolution. (changes where one kind evolves into another kind such as monkeys to man)

Fans of Darwin extrapolate survival of the fittest to argue for the elimination of certain types of people. (Hitler and the Nazis but certainly not limited to them.)

The result of social Darwinism.

The result of social Darwinism and the Final Solution The Online Free Dictionary defines Social Darwinism like this:

What is social Darwinism? Definitions differ and some would say that social Darwinism has been discredited usually because of its connection to the Nazi’s but ironically not because of its connection to Margaret Sanger the founder of Planned Parenthood. Here is an online definition of social Darwinism that gives the reader that basic idea.

Social Darwinism: The application of Darwinism to the study of human society, specifically a theory in sociology that individuals or groups achieve advantage over others as the result of genetic or biological superiority.
Sanger is a heroine to pro-abortion people. They either ignore or brush under the rug her fondness for eugenics and the elimination of the "unfit." Here's a quote from one of her writings: It is a vicious cycle; ignorance breeds poverty and poverty breeds ignorance. There is only one cure for both, and that is to stoop breeding these things. Stop bringing to birth children whose inheritance cannot be one of health or intelligence. Stop bringing into the world children whose parents cannot provide for them.

Sanger is a heroine to pro-abortion people. They either ignore or brush under the rug her fondness for eugenics and the elimination of the “unfit.” Here’s a quote from one of her writings: It is a vicious cycle; ignorance breeds poverty and poverty breeds ignorance. There is only one cure for both, and that is to stoop breeding these things. Stop bringing to birth children whose inheritance cannot be one of health or intelligence. Stop bringing into the world children whose parents cannot provide for them.

The application of this definition to the Nazi’s is apparent. They sought to eliminate people groups they believed to be inferior. They made decisions of life and death based on the assumption that certain people groups had no right to life.  The ages or gender of their victims mattered not.
Pro-abortion people, whether they intend or not make decisions of life or death. The media’s lack of coverage for Kermit Gosnell is an example of their reluctance to deal with the obvious and that is, a fetus is a baby and it is life. The fact that a late-term abortion looks like life is the inconvenient truth that causes pro-abortion people to avert their eyes.
Gosnell is the house of horrors abortion doctor responsible for killing living infants. At the time of this writing he has been acquitted of three murders. Perhaps the judge was swayed by one defense lawyer’s argument that one movement from an aborted baby does not mean it’s alive. I don’t know. What I do know is that a statement like that is worthy of a Margaret Sanger or a Nazi eugenicist.
The Gosnell solution

The Gosnell solution

Gosnell apparently botched more than a few late-term abortions. His victims were primarily minorities and ironically he gave white women a little better care. Some would call that racist. Gosnell had no problem at all making a decision of death, deciding who was unfit to live. Whatever his reasons that is eugenics and social Darwinism applied to the most helpless.

Some pro-abortion activists have been rightly horrified by Gosnell. Why they are horrified  can be a variable and have nothing to do with understanding that a fetus is life, regardless of term.

Pro-abortion people do not like being compared to Nazis and I don’t blame them. What I would hope however is that they come to realize by being “for” abortion and the so-called right to choose is akin to granting someone the right to choose who is fit to live and who is not.

We should not be surprised to find other Gosnell’s.

The Cult of Personality and the Accomplice Media

1 Comment

March 5th was the 60th anniversary of Joseph Stalin’s 1953 death. He was 74 and had ruled the Soviet Union since 1924 after Vladimir Lenin had died.

In some parts of modern Russia his life and legacy are remembered fondly largely for leading his country through World War 2 and for the Soviet Union becoming a superpower. During his lifetime the state-controlled media carefully cultivated an image of “Uncle Joe” and thus contributed to what we’d call now a “cult of personality.”

Mao at Stalin's side on a ceremony arranged fo...

Mao at Stalin’s side on a ceremony arranged for Stalin’s 70th birthday in Moscow in December 1949. Behind between them is Marshal of the Soviet Union Nikolai Bulganin. on the right hand of Stalin is Walter Ulbricht of East Germany and at the edge Mongolia’s Yumjaagiin Tsedenbal. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Stalin’s one time ally, Adolf Hitler, also had a state-run media that cultivated his cult of personality.

The similarities between Stalin and Hitler go beyond their control of the media and the cultivation of image. Both dictators are responsible for the deaths of millions. Few Russians mourned Stalin’s passing in 1953. His successor, Nikita Khrushchev launched a program that was known as de-Stalinization, in part, because of the dictator’s paranoia and brutality.

Unlike Hitler, who few Germans would think of fondly, Stalin’s image has received a new face-lift and many Russians remember “Uncle Joe” with admiration apparently forgetting or approving of the death of millions under his brutal reign.

On March 5th, 2013, Hugo Chavez, dictator/President of Venezuela died. Chavez’s political party was the United Socialist Party of Venezuela and he had ruled since 1999. CNN calls Chavez an influential leader with a mixed record.

His record is mixed because he spent millions of Venezuela’s oil money (CITGO) on social programs and was a virulent opponent of capitalism and hence, the US, which is why Chavez is celebrated by the American left. Chavez once called George Bush the devil and the left loved it. Venezuelans loved Chavez and his adoring throngs are now in national mourning. The state-run media in Venezuela has always been keen to promote the cult of Chavez’s anti-Americanism. It’s also worth pointing out that Chavez was friends with Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and of course Castro, all lovers of a free press and dissent.

Opposition to Chavez was not allowed. Chavez regime, like Stalin’s, like Hitler’s, like dictators everywhere crush all opposition and dissent, both  real and imagined. That’s what dictator’s do, one way or the other.

Critics also point out that Chavez’s social programs are unsustainable and despite the pouring in of money Venezuelans remain as poor as ever, except of course if you are a party loyalist and on the inside track. Chavez’s personal fortune is estimated at $2 billion dollars, thereby proving that socialism has limits in its goals of redistribution of wealth.  Here’s a quote by Chavez: “Being rich is bad. It is inhuman.” Apparently, being $2 billion rich isn’t bad nor inhuman. Reminds of another quote, “the animals are all equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” (Animal Farm, George Orwell)

I think it was Margaret Thatcher who correctly said, ‘the trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money’?

The remembrance of Stalin’s passing and the actual passing of Chavez got me thinking about President Obama who has said a couple of times he is not a dictator, although some on his side of the aisle and perhaps Obama himself wishes he were.

Nebuchadnezzar's Golden Image

Nebuchadnezzar’s Golden Image

A thing that dictators share is the careful cultivation of image. This is nothing new and even the Bible records such an instance. “King Nebuchadnezzar made an image of gold, whose height was sixty cubits and its breadth six cubits. He set it up on the plain of Dura, in the province of Babylon (Dan. 3:1).)”

The king thought highly of himself and I can’t think of a dictator who did not or does not. An inflated self-image and massive ego seems to be part and parcel of what it means to be a dictator. Some have noticed that the President seems to fit the profile especially when he channels Abraham Lincoln.

Dictators have to be thought of as great by the people they dictate over. Who can forget the films of the adoring masses that assembled for an Adolf Hitler parade. This is why they have to control the media. This is why Bob Woodward, no right-wing conservative got his nose out of joint when not so subtly threatened when he pointed out some rather obvious inconsistencies with the administration.

When people think the dictator great or some kind of messiah this enables the dictator to oppress and/or demonize the opposition. The story line goes like this.

The dictator is a man of the people and he is the one who must destroy those who would oppose the people. Stalin, Chavez and dare I say Obama may differ by scope and scale but they all fancied or fancy themselves warriors of the poor and down trodden. “Fairness” as defined by the dictator is their flag as if who could be opposed to what is fair.

The state-run media will assist the dictator with his agenda and will never point out that the dictator is not all that he is cracked up to be. And if the media should revolt, beware, dictators do not like having it pointed out they are dictators, hence Obama’s denial that he is one. Me thinks he protests too much.

This is why the opposition to Obama is always racist, why the opposition wants the elderly to starve, why the opposition wants children in over crowded classrooms,  why conservatives are responsible for global warming,  and hate Latino’s, have  a war on women, favor the rich and greedy and are responsible for smelly feet around the world.

The dictator must promote and protect his own image while destroying the image of any and all opposition. His reward will be an adoring public and the sad thing is, it often times works.

Some might object that I mention President Obama in the same post as Stalin because the President is not responsible for the death of millions. Fair enough, they certainly are different in that regard. But as one young man told me, I think Stalin did a lot of good but went a little too far. That’s the thinking of a Marxist. The death of millions is simply the extent of control that a dictator like Stalin could obtain.

But comparing the President to Chavez is not so great a leap. The President will never admit to being a socialist. It’s not good for his image at this point. He’d rather be a progressive and put some distance between himself and the likes of Chavez. On the other hand, his actions or inactions speak louder than his words and I believe he has more in common with Chavez than he does with Abraham Lincoln.

Nope

Nope

There is more than one path to dictatorship and the President already has an adoring media as well as an adoring public. If he destroys the Republicans with his demagoguery by 2014 there is no stopping the man who would be king.

%d bloggers like this: