Archive for category The influence of film

On Derren Brown: Fear and faith – Channel 4

Last night for some reason, I viewed some of Derren Brown’s “fear and faith” on channel 4. Not one of the better channels on British television.

After watching a little bit, I found it of no real surprise to see him yet again manipulating undefined people with his mind games and tricks of the brain.

As is common and typical of modern atheists, I watched him play his game which begins in one area, wins over his audience, then moves towards the direction of Christianity, which if he is honest, is what his whole game is about demolishing.

Somehow, I think all his efforts are merely a support act to warm up his audience to get them ready for the headliner.

Don’t forget Mr Brown, I’ve been in showbusiness for a long time. I know the ropes!

He moves onto his predictable thought or question, “Is God the ultimate placebo”?

Its not a question on his part, since he has already concluded his answer.

However, not content with verbally inviting a man to sell his soul to the devil, via an ancient “satanic rite”, the British illusionist, mentalist and hypnotist thus attempted to emulate a “Religious conversion” with his atheist guinea pig.

He met with an atheist woman and gave her a ‘religious conversion’? If that is the right term to use?

Whatever his game was, it was certainly not a ‘religious conversion’. I say this by knowledge, history and experience that the true and accurate Christian evangelist need not use finger tapping motions or emotional games to win over a convert. He need only preach Jesus Christ and Him crucified.

It is true that many use games and tricks within so-called Christianity, but we know that there are always true and false ones in all, but the one who is faithful and relies upon the assistance of Grace need not use methods of men and workings of the devil to win people over.

He need only preach Jesus Christ, and Him crucified, under Pontius Pilate and who died, was buried and rose again on the third day.

As it is written. And “The scripture CANNOT be broken” John 10: 35

I suppose this game he plays opens up the floodgates for the question of whether or not these people and others, inculding scientists and the media can use these games to manipulate the average human brain so much that they can even persuade a nation to believe that Darwin’s theory is actually a fact?

Let us not forget that ‘Brown and Dawkins’ are familiar with each other.

Nevertheless, “The scripture CANNOT be broken” John 10: 35

, , ,

Leave a comment

Sherlock – BBC – Series 2 – Why so much Blasphemy my dear Watson?

During my childhood I grew up watching the classic black and white Sherlock Holmes movies starring Basil Rathbone as Sherlock Holmes and Nigel Bruce as Dr Watson. In a series of 14 movies released between 1939 – 1946, these familiar films contain various adaptations and re-inventions of the original Conan Doyle stories of which 12 movies were set in the 1940’s. Sadly this series did not portray Watson quite accurately.

In the 1980’s – 1990’s we saw an excellent return of Holmes and Watson in the series made for TV starring Jeremy Brett. For me, and from a viewpoint of the acting alone, the Jeremy Brett series is the cream of Conan Doyle adaptations and is greatly admired by many who know and have read the original stories.

However, what we find today with the more recent Sherlock Holmes adaptations is a somewhat confused re-interpretation of Holmes which is about as accurate to Conan Doyle as Braveheart was to William Wallace.

Over the last 2 years or so there has been a number of modern re-interpretations of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s private consulting detective, Sherlock Holmes on both cinema and television.

In 2009 the cinema was hit with a blockbuster version of Sherlock Holmes re-interpreted as played by Robert Downey Jnr. Downey played Sherlock as a somewhat comical, messy Chaplinesque type character. In 2011 the screen was hit yet again with a Downey playing a Sherlock who was this time more like ‘Iron Man’ than Holmes. Thus, Sherlock moved from Chaplinesque to Iron Man.

In the recent BBC series, ‘Sherlock’, and distinctly throughout series 2, we saw a Sherlock who is somewhat cold and aggressive and lacks the quality of respect of the character within the original writings. Though well acted and well made, the stories moved a little and were often unclear and a little more far fetched than the original Conan Doyle stories, likewise we also find a Watson who is now distinctly and repeatedly guilty of blasphemy against the name of Jesus Christ.

This blasphemy can be found in all three episodes of series 2.

Likewise, in episode 1 of series 2, “A Scandal in Belgravia” we find a distinct atheist influenced statement from the script, in which Watson while in conversation with a very odd interpretation of Irene Adler, made a distinct atheist statement. In a response to a comment concerning mobile phone texts, we heard Watson say, “Sherlock always replies to everything. He’s mister punchline, he will outlive God trying to have the last word”.

This statement is odd, since Sherlock does not actually exist so how can he outlive God?

The series concluded with episode 3 “The Reichenbach fall” which contained an out of character portrayal of a suicidal Moriarty who near ruins Sherlock and then commits suicide by putting a gun in his mouth and firing it without any sign of armed police showing up? But still, a surprising event concluded with Sherlock appearing to commit suicide by jumping off a building and crashing to the floor, yet within moments and yet again another blasphemous use of the name of Jesus, it became apparently clear that Sherlock had actually faked his own death.

I watched the episode and compared it with the original Conan Doyle ending and I could not help but regard the original ending far better and more realistic than the modern. However, I noticed from the modern version a distinct paralleled mind game complete with a simulative subliminal reference to the death of Jesus, which in this case Sherlock appears to have died and is soon resurrected and stands watching his closest friends visit his grave. This comparison was also made a little more evident when ‘Radio Times’ published a review by David Brown on 15th January 2012, in which Brown said, quote, “Even Jesus took three days before His miraculous resurrection”. Thus containing a very immature and distinctly poor reference to the resurrection of Jesus as though it took Jesus 3 days to rise again and thus Sherlock rose from the grave quicker than Christ. The difference is that Jesus did actually die as history proves and He did raise Himself from the dead which is also a historical fact. He did not merely appear to make a careful plan to jump off a building with restricted landing view and apparently into a padded parked van on the road?

However, the problem is that the Sherlock BBC TV series was created by two modern atheist screenwriters, Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss and it is apparent when considering modern atheism in Britain that the screen writers are inwardly using Sherlock as a spokesman for modern atheism and I am curious to know if there is a larger game afoot? After all, Conan Doyle was a spiritualist and not an atheist.

Likewise we not only did we hear the Watson of this series make such a dogmatic atheist statement that Sherlock will outlive God, but we also hear Watson blaspheme the name of Jesus more times than I care to mention.

Which begs the question; how is it that we hear so much blasphemy these days and why is so much of this blasphemy directed against the name of the Christian God?

Why is blasphemy against Jesus Christ permitted on screen yet we do not hear the same for Mohammed or Allah?

Is this fair?
Is this right?
Is this moral?
Is this acceptable?

Don’t take me wrongly, for my faith is very strong and I am not offended by blasphemy, for people merely bring destruction upon themselves, and likewise, I am good with re-interpretations of classic stories but maybe the BBC should stop playing the coward and maybe next time the scriptwriters for Sherlock series 3 should try adding the name of ‘Allah’ or ‘Mohammed’ in their long list of blasphemies, if they dare!

We like Sherlock and maybe people may make more accurate versions once again, but until then the question remains; is Sherlock now being made a spokesman for modern atheism which thinks it will outlive God?
I leave the matter for the moment in Conan Doyle’s own words from the familiar and intellegent Sherlock we all know;

There’s an east wind coming all the same, such a wind as never blew on England yet. It will be cold and bitter, Watson, and a good many of us may wither before its blast. But it’s God’s own wind none the less, and a cleaner, better, stronger land will lie in the sunshine when the storm has cleared.”

Sherlock Holmes
His last bow

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


On screen violence and its spreading Influence – The British Board of Film Classification and “The Human Centipede” 1 & 2

Few can deny that many modern movies and television programmes have not lowered in their standards over recent years. Violence, foul language, explicit sex and total depravity and disregard for human life are ever present on screen.

Censorship has not yet completely gone, but it may as well be gone, because it’s not very good. Now, many would argue against me on this and I too would argue against them, that the influence violent movies have upon the mind are affecting the societies we live in. Recently, a totally sick film, and I mean sick as in its old usage in connection to ‘vomit’ was released and passed by the British Board of Film Classification. The film of course was the ‘human centipede 2’. In the opening scene, the film presents a visual representation of a man who had been watching “The human centipede 1” and thus, it is clear that the script and film is communicating that the 1st film influenced the person and he then goes out to do what he saw in the 1st film and the plot gets more and more ‘perverted’ and twisted.

I will not go on to say what happens in the film, and I have no intentions of exploring this filth, but I will say that I believe and know this film is evil and has no place whatsoever in a modern society and has no place within English culture or society. It is not art. It is not good, it is just filth and perverted and its influence is potentially dangerous to society.

The problem is that films like this when permitted to be released only add fuel to the already spreading fire. What is coming next?

I would like to ask some questions; Is this what people call art? Is this what films are about? Or has the world completely lost it standards and morals or has it gone so far into extreme ideas and depravity that it has forgotten basic common sense and humanity?

I don’t believe I stand alone on this topic and I know that many people out in our day and age do know that what I say is true. Now, in a world so full of evil, wretchedness and wars and much lack of humanity and regard for human life, do we need or should we permit films like this to be played on our cinemas and put on DVD and played in homes? No, I say, no.

The British government and the authorities must wake up from their slumbers and do something about this mess before the infection spreads out of control. I say it again, evil, twisted, sick movies have no place in western civilization and in the interests of the public and basic humanity and for the progress of our modern world these perverted movies should be banished from our society.

, , , , , , , ,

1 Comment