Alisha Rouse for the "Daily Mail" writes:
In an interview with Attitude magazine, director Bill Condon said: ‘LeFou is somebody who on one day wants to be Gaston and on another day wants to kiss Gaston.
‘He’s confused about what he wants. It’s somebody who’s just realising that he has these feelings. It is a nice, exclusively gay moment in a Disney movie.’
Now, I understand that sometimes the news is all hype--like when Facebook exploded with the "lesbian" scene in Finding Dory. And, granted, no one has seen Beauty and the Beast and declared it to have a homosexual element. But when the director of the film says that, through the character of LeFou, Disney is "sending out a message that this is normal and natural," I think we can say the intent is pretty clear.Mr Condon said the character, played by Josh Gad, is part of a ‘watershed moment’ for Disney. He said: ‘The studio is sending out a message that this is normal and natural – and this is a message that will be heard in every country of the world, even countries where it’s still socially unacceptable or even illegal to be gay.’
Immediately I asked myself whether that would affect my plans to see the new remake. Would this slap in the face of Biblical values and Judeo-Christian conservatism produce any more than a small blip in my plans to patronize the theater later this month?
And what has led us as a Christian culture to consider letting an "exclusively gay moment" in a classic fairy tale not affect us?
One of the few TV shows I actually let the world of Facebook know I watch is Doctor Who. It is relatively clean, both in language and sensuality. But in the first several seasons--the best seasons, in my opinion--there's Captain Jack Harkness, blatantly gay both on and off screen.
One of the movies I don't openly tell people I like, but happen to like, is Leap Year. While there isn't any homosexuality, the movie does have two characters that live together--in fact, the only reason they're able to get an apartment in an exclusive community is by telling the board that they are going to marry (I mean, we were going to eventually, so why not now?).
Sherlock--which I just finished watching for the first time in the last month or so--is decidedly pro-gay and pro-fornication. It's not the main focus of the show--it's not why we become so enthralled with the characters--but it's there. Perhaps even more overtly than it will be in Beauty and the Beast.
So where do we draw the line?
Even Christy and Signed, Sealed, and Delivered, extremely innocent TV shows that they are--and that I've loved--explore themes of believers falling in love with non-believers without any insinuation that that is extremely foolhardy.
I feel a little like the frog being boiled in water--immorality as Biblically defined has become such a normal part of entertainment that I have accepted it even while keeping in the back of my mind that "that scene/character/theme is wrong."
So what's the big deal if Beauty and the Beast will be a watershed moment for Disney? For us believers, it's just another movie we'll enjoy. Maybe we'll give a caviat when recommending it, because, well, some people might not want their kids to be exposed to that, or, it's not something you would expect it in a cartoon remake. But as adults, we will watch the movie because how can we condemn this film and yet swallow hook-line-and-sinker all these other shows we enjoy that are as bad or worse?
Be holy as I am holy, He says.
So where do we draw the line?
P.S. And how far have we come? When I was a child, I tore up my VHS copy of Beauty and the Beast--even though it was a favorite--because of Biblically-condemned bestiality and witchcraft.
(If you wish to read the full article by the Daily Mail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4269824/Disney-puts-gay-scene-Beauty-Beast.html#ixzz4a7NroFNr )
No comments:
Post a Comment