How to Tell if You’re Treating Actors Like Whores
The topic? A popular television series they
had all been watching. Here’s what I heard them say. (The names I’ve used are
not real.)
LEO: I’ve watched the first 5 seasons. I
attempted to start season 6 the other day, but I just couldn’t take it. I made
it only twenty minutes into the first episode before the hyper-sexualization of
everything, including 15-year-old girls, did me in. So Nate, give me your best
judgment: is there enough of a payoff in terms of storyline development to make
another go at it worthwhile?
NATE: Orson would be the best judge of that.
I stopped during season three.
ORSON: The finale of the latest season is,
for me, quite a pleasant surprise in terms of the positive direction we may be
heading for the seventh, and final, season.
At first glance, the conversation doesn’t seem that scandalous, does it?
The moral callousness isn’t blatant, but it slinks through the discussion like
Harry Potter under his invisibility cloak.
The main question brought up was this: When is it okay to
hyper-sexualize actors—in this case, several minors—for the sake of
entertainment? When are such actions worthy of our patronage? The answer, it
seems, is when we’re fairly certain that the story is heading in a positive
direction. That makes the sexual objectification okay. In other words, the end
justifies the means.
To help make things even clearer, let me paraphrase Leo’s thoughts in
this way: “I’m disgusted that the filmmakers hyper-sexualized everything about
the show. The shameless objectification of actors was appalling to my senses.
However, I’m willing to put my moral revulsion aside as long as the emotional
payoff is rewarding enough to me as a viewer.”
Let me be the first to say that I don’t think Leo, Nate, and Orson are
perverts looking for new ways to feed the lust monster. On the contrary, they
seem to take seriously the matter of personal purity. The problem is, that’s all they seem to be concerned with. And
too often, I think it’s all we’re concerned with as well.
As patrons of Hollywood, we’ve gotten into a consumer mindset that
disregards most every other factor in favor of us having a positive, cathartic
experience. If the story is interesting enough, and if it “demands” the
objectification and dehumanization of actors, then the needs of the story win
out.
In contrast, Paul calls Christians
to give up their rights if it means hurting the conscience of others (see 1
Corinthians 9 and Romans 14). We’ve got it backwards: we financially support
the violation of others’ dignity—even in the case of “willing” actors—so we can benefit from their moral and
emotional compromises.
Granted, the context of Paul’s
teaching on this matter is the relationship between members of the church, but
I don’t think that gives us an excuse to disregard the well being of
unbelievers. In the end, the conversation between Leo, Nate, and Orson shows how “love
your neighbor as yourself” does not
affect our entertainment choices like it should.
Let’s examine a current movie in light of the “law of love” principle
and see how it applies. Transformers: Age
of Extinction recently came out in theaters. It’s no secret that the past Transformers movies have blatantly
objectified their female leads, and this entry into the franchise follows suit.
Speaking of underage girls, Steven D. Greydanus mentions how Nicola
Peltz is “Bay’s youngest sex object yet.” Peltz herself is 19, but in Age of Extinction she plays a 17-year-old
girl who is the willing victim of statutory rape—a fact which she and her 20-year-old
boyfriend rub
in her father’s face throughout the film.
The movie makes sure to rub Peltz’s body in the audience’s
face as well. Andrew Parker writes, “[Micahel] Bay gets his pervert on thanks to
shooting Peltz like a sex object and then chastising his audience for viewing
her as such, before finally giving his audience the most ludicrously reassuring
pat on the back to tell you it’s cool to ogle teens.” And Peltz isn’t the
film’s only victim, according to Diego Crespo: “In
true Bay fashion, every woman in the movie is treated like a sex object. . . . The
camera fetishes [sic] their every motion. It makes Victoria Secret commercials
look subtle.”
Now, can I say that it is universally and categorically
sinful for anyone to go see Transformers
4? No, I cannot. Such a sweeping statement would be unwise and
uncharitable.
What I can do, and what I encourage you to do, is ask the
following questions (about Transformers
or any other movie):
If your answer to the above questions is “Yes,” then no matter how well your own personal purity is protected, you are treating actors like whores for your own personal gain.
- If an actor (or group of actors) is being objectified (which often indicates he or she experienced some form of manipulation on set), do you financially support it anyway because the story looks interesting or thought-provoking or entertaining enough?
- When it all is said and done, is your patronage of a film unaffected by whether or not actors are shamefully dehumanized and/or abused?
If your answer to the above questions is “Yes,” then no matter how well your own personal purity is protected, you are treating actors like whores for your own personal gain.
That may not be your intention. Your desires in and of
themselves may be far from perverse. But you’re still being a party to the objectification
of actors made in God’s image. Metaphorically speaking, you’re fine with touring a
pimp house—just so long as the sounds of abuse are quickly replaced by relaxing
music on the drive home.
photo credit: Sean Molin Photography via photopin
cc