The condign justice article in the New York Times right now is the news about how badly comedies and drama are doing at the movie box office. Good. Hollywood deserves it, and has for a while. The gift link is here, but the article is biased and incompetent. When the Times gets around to theorizing about why this is happening, guess what it omits?
The Wuhan Virus freakout and lockdown, which Hollywood’s wildly woke pals in the news media, the medical profession, the teachers’ unions and in government agencies inflicted on the nation and the culture. Ending the important social binding function of shared audience experiences is just one of the collateral catastrophes the mass, partially politically-motivated fearmongering created.
Gee, the Times marvels: the only movies drawing audiences to the theaters—sometimes—are anime, animated kids shows, special effects-fests, and new installments of old action, sci-fi and super-hero “franchises.” The permanently fearful still wearing masks (old virtue-signaling Democrats, weenies) aren’t the ones leaving their living rooms for those. What a surprise that the Bruce Springsteen (“Who?”) hagiography flopped!
Nor does the Times mention that the relentless efforts of Hollywood to insert anti-American values and Leftist propaganda in its films has managed to alienate at least half the US voting population. Many of the other reasons for the cratering are listed, like high ticket prices. I was enlightened by the list of “stars” whose films have flopped recently: Margot Robbie, Colin Farrell, Dwayne Johnson, Julia Roberts, Channing Tatum, Jennifer Lopez, Austin Butler, Keanu Reeves, Jennifer Lawrence, Robert Pattinson, Emma Stone, Sydney Sweeney and Russell Crowe. Hollywood has de-emphasized human beings for so long, there are no stars any more with the drawing power of who we used to call stars. Maybe Tom Cruise is the last of the breed. Julia Roberts has been past her pull-date as a romantic comedy star for a long time. Have you seen Russell Crowe lately? Is Austen Butler really a star?
But I digress. Write your own ethics movie plot. AI will star fake but convincing Audrey Hepburn, Charlie Chaplin, Gene Kelly, John Wayne and Sean Connery in it….
Ethics Alarms 
Those aren’t necessarily “bad” movies though. They just lack spectacle and the extra effort that would demand going to the theater. I’m a loyal AMC A-List member, which means I’ve already paid a monthly fee and can attend 4 movies a week in any format. In September, I made it to “The Long Walk” and “Caught Stealing”. I failed to go to any movie in October, and in November I’ve seen “Predator: Badlands” and tomorrow “Now You See Me: Now You Don’t”.
I wanted to see Netflix’s “Frankenstein” in theaters, but they made that hard to do, so I didn’t. What does have spectacle on the horizon? Definitely “Wicked For Good”, “Avatar 3”. James Cameron always puts in the effort, just as Tom Cruise puts in the effort. I’ve also quickly become a fan of Glen Powell, so I’ll be seeing “Running Man” this weekend too.
But September/October is a tough time to go see a movie. Everyone’s amped up about politics and fighting online, looking for confirmation bias, and they’re also drawn in by NCAA football, NFL football, NHL hockey, NBA basketball, and a myriad of TV shows that no one dared to release in Summer. The competition is real.
Anyways… I have a great list of great movies people can watch that they’ve probably never seen, or if anyone wants to talk about movies in general, or what movie to watch to convey a certain ethics message or any value or life lesson, just comment below and I’ll drop a recommendation!
Let’s not forget that big-screen TV’s and Blu-ray players and reasonably good sound systems have come down in price to where it’s within reach of most people and become commonplace enough to affect the movie-going market. My 75″ TV today vs. the “big” 25″ TV in the living room when I was growing up? Apples vs. Super-massive black holes.
Hell, even high-end projectors aren’t the 5-figure expenditure they used to be and 4K laser projectors can be had by the enthusiast for a couple thousand now.
Why go to the theater when I can stay home and have substantially the same experience, with many additional perks that the theater can’t do and never will be able to do (pause the movie on demand? back it up a few seconds to catch a line of dialog you missed?) and without paying the huge ticket price and obscene markup on snacks?
Over the last 10 years, I’ve probably averaged seeing less than one movie in a theater per year.
–Dwayne
“Over the last 10 years, I’ve probably averaged seeing less than one movie in a theater per year.”
I’ve NEVER been to a movie with my wife, and we’ve been together since 07/31/1998.
PWS
There is a lady on TikTok who has created quite a bit of a stir by calling churches, a mosque, and a Buddhist temple, and asking them for baby formula while playing a recording of a crying baby. I have been following this story for three days now. He is what I can tell is the gist of it.
She claims it is a test.
Both the mosque and temple have a 100% pass rate on her test. As far as I can tell, she only called one of each.
9/33 churches have a pass rate. According to her, all nine of them are black churches.
She did not start by asking for cash, only formula. At least in one case, when a church said they don’t carry formula, she asked for money instead.
A referral to other services/partnerships was considered a failure.
A failure to help her in the way she wanted was considered a failure.
My Thoughts:
Since becoming a full-time minister, I have found that almost all calls to the church come through me and visitors who show up at the building. That means I’m dealing with a lot of benevolence work. It’s important for me to know what the church is going to do when it decides to help another individual. When I was in Missouri, my personal experience was that most people wanted help with gas. Now that I’m in South Carolina, most people want help with utilities or rent. Here is what I’ve learned.
DISCERNMENT IS NECESSARY
I have learned, and what a lot of people have pointed out who have commented on the lady’s test, is to use discernment. In Missouri, this was easy. I would say, “Hey, there is a gas station next to the church. Come by and I’ll put a few dollars in your tank. In the five years I was there, I only helped maybe fewer than 10 people (I’m sure I got more than 100 gas-related calls). Did I tell them no? No I did not. But, if I was giving them what they wanted, why did they still not come? Anyone who has worked in any kind of charity knows people are going to try to scam you. Being a Christian does not mean letting the world abuse you. A church (and an individual) has an obligation to take care of the things God has given them and not let them go to waste.
I saw someone write as some kind of gotcha, “Would you do the same for Jesus?” Another person replied, “If Jesus came back, it wouldn’t be necessary. But even in your scenario, yes. I discerned it was Jesus; therefore, I would help. Jesus even told us people were going to claim to be him and we should be weary.”
SCRIPTURE ISN’T ONE-DIMENSIONAL
A common rebuttal to the Christian argument of discernment is Matthew 5:42: “Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.” Using this passage as a general statement on charity is found lacking even in a worldly view. I’m going to quite Bill Muehlenberg here because I think he has an excellent reply that actually includes another scripture:
“We do not give indiscriminately and without knowledge and wisdom. If a jihadist wants me to give him money to kill Jews, I will not. If a drug addict on the streets wants me to give him money to support his lethal habit, I will not. It is called loving your neighbor as yourself. In the same Sermon on the Mount Jesus said, “Do not cast your pearls before swine”. Comprende? And in this case, it was clearly a scam which no Christian is obligated to take part in. We are called to be wise as serpents and harmless as doves – not clueless wonders with zero discernment!”
Even more to the point, to use scripture in this way is to eisegesis what Jesus is saying. In context, this is about how we treat our enemies. Even more to the point, Jesus is teaching a heart issue. If your brand of Christianity says, “I will only help me and my own,” then sure, you got a problem. If you’re not helping people, because they are not part of the church, then maybe you need to rethink what Jesus is saying.
A CHRISTIAN (Or really anyone) HELPING YOU OR NOT HELPING YOU IN THE WAY THE CAN/ABLE/HAVE TO DOES NOT MAKE THEM HYPROCRITE.
I’m convinced that a majority of Americans have no clue what a hypocrite is. By definition hypocrisy is the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one’s own behavior does not conform. I would also extend this to add something about it not also being required by law. If the law requires you to do it, even if you believe you shouldn’t it doesn’t necessarily make you a hypocrite. In the example above: a church is not a hypocrite for taking their resources and allowing another organization to handle it. A church is not a hypocrite if they can’t help in this one instance. A church is not a hypocrite by using discernment. A church is not a hypocrite if they do not help you in the way you want. As far as I can tell, a church would only be a hypocrite is if they took money from their members claiming it would be good to give to others, they did nothing but took care of themselves.
A CHRISTIAN’S PRIMARY RESPONBILITY IS TO SHARE GOSPEL.
I think this goes without saying, but the world seems to think it can use the resources of the church without getting the message of the church. Yes, Christians should help the those in need, but Christians and churches should be focused on the primary goal. There is a good illustration in John 6:26-27: Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you are seeking me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves. 27 Do not work for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you. For on him God the Father has set his seal.”
OTHER RANDOM POINTS:
Deception as a moral issue: The TikTok creator is lying (pretending to have a baby and need formula). That deception undermines any moral high ground she claims.
Public shaming vs. private accountability: Christ taught in Matthew 18 to handle offenses privately first, not to broadcast them. Public humiliation is not the same as justice.
It’s not a test of compassion, it’s a test of access: She’s testing phone availability and policy, not human empathy. If she actually showed up, the result might be very different.
Jesus’s compassion was always personal and relational — He met people face to face.
It’s not unloving to say “no” — it can be the most loving answer when “yes” would enable dependency or deceit.
Churches are not stocked like food banks or social service offices; most keep very little physical aid on site.
Many churches have liability and safety concerns when it comes to cash handouts or strangers on property.
Modern “call-out culture” measures compassion by visibility, not truth.
There is something to be said about practicing you righteousness before others (Matthew 6:1).
Churches operate in nuance, not algorithms.
With all that being said, If you know someone truly in need, and you have the ability to help them, you should. Afterall, we love, because he first loved us (John 4:19).
In the anti-ice “resistance” movements in LA and then Portland, much of the activity was coming from what clearly looked like “ANTIFA” types. The Chicago “resistance” seems to be much more of the “average public” type of people. I’m seeing a significant number of people who may not realize the trouble that they may find themselves in. It really makes me wonder if this is an end product of the brainswashing of the endless axis of unethical conduct, a lack of civics education, or both?
Just to clarify: ICE and CBP are law enforcement. Just touching them can get you in a lot of trouble. If you do touch them, you can get a disproportionate physical response, and you have minimal recourse. Maybe a chance if they really go over the line, but it is years and all that happens is you get money, and nothing will happen to the officers. If you interfere, you can go to prison for most of a decade. Doing it against federal agents puts it in federal court, and most federal judges don’t have much tolerance.
I also see claims that the “resistance” seem to think matter, but don’t. The feds can put whatever license plate on a vehicle they choose, and no one has any recourse. If they’re smart, they’re printing them en masse. The police do not have to show anyone else a warrant, just the parties involved. The feds don’t have to give two shits to anything a state judge says, they have no authority over them. Yelling “shame shame shame” at agents just tells everyone they’re getting under your skin.