Start Supporting Pornography or Stop Supporting “The Wolf of Wall Street”
In another corner of
cyberspace, Christ and Pop Culture examined the implications of Miley Cyrus spending “the majority of her 6 minutes on stage ‘twerking.’”
The magazine summarized the sexualized spectacle as “exuberant, banal,
nihilism.” Several months later, while examining Scorsese’s filmmaking and
stylistic choices, this same magazine adamantly proposed that The Wolf of Wall Street
was not only “redeemable,” but also “an incredibly moral film.”
How can the Christian
community disapprove of a young woman pretending to have sex while half naked,
then turn around and praise a 40-year-old for “flopping around naked” (as DiCaprio
himself put it) in a major motion picture? To answer succinctly, and to borrow a phrase
from Keving DeYoung, it’s because there is a “hole in our holiness.” We’re living out a
twisted version of The Emperor’s New
Clothes, where the townsfolk are no longer pretending their ruler has
clothes on—they’re actually convinced nothing is amiss.
Am I coming down
too hard on this film? Am I comparing apples to oranges? Let’s examine some key
arguments to see if The Wolf of Wall
Street (henceforth WoWS) is not
the wolf in sheep’s clothing I’m claiming it to be.
“The message of the movie is a moral one.”
Maybe someone would
say that, while Miley was glorifying vice with her dance number, Scorsese was
condemning vice with his film’s sex scenes. The movie’s sexual inundation is
excusable ultimately because of the intention behind the inundation. In other
words, the ultimate message of the movie determines whether the rampant
sexuality is glorified or not.
Christ and Pop Culture sought to explore
the intent behind WoWS, citing the
messages behind certain songs Scorsese selected to play over certain scenes. Granted,
such an investigation isn’t necessarily without merit. Nevertheless, the
gymnastics necessary to turn debauchery into righteousness is, at best,
awkward. (The article might have been improved if it also examined the petition Scorsese signed in defense of child rapist Roman Polanski. Such a stance reveals his warped views on sex—a
pertinent point when evaluating Scorsese’s ability to handle sexual themes
rightly.)
For the Christian, a
story’s method should be just as important as its message. Not all techniques
are created equal. A supposedly moral message doesn’t give the storyteller a
free pass to use whatever method he or she wants. No amount of metamorphosis
can transform obscene sexual images into clean entertainment. In fact, a story
can send contradictory messages by using improper methods. In the end, we are
all accountable to God, not just for what
we say, but also for how we say it.
“But the sex is portrayed as objectionable, not
commendable.”
It could be
argued that the sex acts portrayed on screen were never designed to depict sex
as it should be, but rather sex gone awry—sex that is unrestrained, perverted, and
dirty. Therefore, it isn’t tantalizing or problematic.
But how could we
better describe pornography than with those same words? The porn industry thrives on displaying sexual acts that
are unrestrained, perverted, and dirty. The very nature of sexual lust is, as
Josh Harris says,
“coveting the forbidden.”
The reason all
sex outside marriage—from the socially acceptable to the fairly “kinky” to the
outright violent—is tantalizing is because it’s forbidden. Therefore, displaying
a sex act on screen (real or simulated) is to display sex as it should not be.
In other words, it is tantalizing. In other words, it is pornographic.
Pornography cannot rightly be used
to communicate a moral message. It isn’t possible. Whether it was designed to
be a morality play or not, WoWS is an
immorality play.
“The Bible itself is R-rated (or worse).”
Now here’s a real
example of comparing apples to oranges! To be fair, the Bible does handle some serious sexual topics, including prostitution, adultery, incest, and rape. But
Scripture never lingers over details.
Even in the case
of David and Bathsheba, which involves voyeurism, no anatomical descriptions
are given. We’re told she is “very beautiful to behold” (2 Sam. 11:2), but
that’s it. We aren’t invited by the writer to gaze on her along with David. And
when the act of adultery comes, it’s over after one verse: “Then David sent messengers, and took her; and she came to him, and
he lay with her, for she was cleansed from her impurity; and she returned to
her house” (v. 4). No lengthy exposition, no play-by-play narration, no sexual
imagery.
Contrast that scene with the written descriptions of the sex scenes in WoWS.
(Warning: the material is intensely graphic.) There’s no comparison; the Bible is
discreet, wheras WoWS doesn’t know
the meaning of the word.
Granted, if the story of David and
Bathsheba were put to film, it could possibly be raunchy, depending on how the
filmmakers adapted the material. It could also just as possibly be handled
chastely without harming the integrity of the story.
So yes, if we
turned the Bible into something that it isn’t—i.e., a visually told story—it
might very well be seedy and perverted. But because the Bible isn’t a movie,
and because it doesn’t revel in depicting depraved sexual acts, it is far from
R-rated.
“What right do you have to critique a film you
haven’t seen?”
It’s true, I have
not seen the movie. But let me ask you this: do you consider it improper to condemn
pornography without watching all (or even any) of it? Probably not. Pornography
is a format that is inherently unredeemable. And the pornographic elements of WoWS are all that I’ve focused on.
Surely you know I’m
not exaggerating. Film critic James Berardinelli says WoWS is “replete with naked bodies and acts of sexual
depravity.” Commentator Jackie Cooper
says it’s a movie with “nudity aplenty and the sex scenes are
fairly graphic. . . . This is a hard R and borderline NC-17.” According to reviewer
Adam R. Holz, “there are 22 sex scenes
in this movie. (But it’s an admittedly difficult tally to be dogmatic about
since sometimes it’s hard to tell when one ends and another begins.)”
I’ve researched a
great deal while writing this blog post. I’ve sought to include only fair and
accurate descriptions. If you have seen the movie and you still think I am
distorting it, please leave a comment. But there’s
no denying the graphic sexuality discussed above. No one can pretend WoWS is an exercise in restraint.
The method is
the message.
There is nothing
inherently wrong with sexual themes in movies. They can be handled delicately
and tastefully. WoWS handles them
crassly, sending a message that contradicts the (apparent) moral of the story. To
quote film critic Jonathan Kiefer, “Glorification [of vice] may not be an intention [of
WoWS] but may be a consequence.”
Whatever Scorsese’s
intent, the end result is a glorification of depraved sexuality, a pornographic
film that speaks out of both sides of its mouth, a morality play in name only. Stories
that use such evil methods shouldn’t be lauded—especially by Christians.
photo credit: Criag Duffy via flickr, CC
photo credit: Criag Duffy via flickr, CC