Talk:Saved!/Archive 1

Reaction from Youth
There's no sources for this section, and no possible way that this could be proven (anecdotal evidence aside). I'm removing the section; if anyone has a good reason why it should be replaced or a way it could be redeemed please make note of it here. Smilingman 02:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms of the Film section
I am a pastor in the United Methodist Church. I don't know if this qualifies me for anything other than an opinion. From my point of view the movie isn't a criticism of Christianity, or even a criticism of Fundamentalism or Charismatic belief. From what I can see this movie is a criticism of those who use religion to hide from the world. I have to admit that I have known people just like Hillary Faye (sp?). I can't judge and decide whether or not they know Jesus. I can say that those people don't seem to know the same God that I profess faith in, or that I teach about on a regular basis. "Why would God make us all so different, if He wanted us to be the same?" Mary asks this question at the end of the movie. From my point of view I can testify about the God that Mary seems to meet by the end of the movie. I believe in the God who made us, and made room for all of us. So often it seems that the scriptures about hate and anger are quoted to cast doubt on Christianity. One of my favorite scriptures is this, Jesus said "I give you a new commandment:love one another; you must love one another just as I have loved you. It is by your love for one another that everyone will recognise you as my disciples." (John 13:34-35 NJB). To say that the movie Saved! is a criticism of Christianity or even any particular denomination would be making the statement that all christians in all denominations agree on all the major themes and treatments presented in this movie. Preachers, bishops, popes, cardinals and lay-people all have differing points of view on their faiths, regardless of their denominational standards. Christians don't agree with one another enough for this movie to be a critique of all of us. On another note, having lived through real situations that were depicted in this movie, I wouldn't even call it a satire. I have known people that were so self-absorbed that they did not see the pregnancy of their own daughter. I can't cite because I am sworn to confidentiality, but surely someone can cite a newspaper article of a mother saying "I had no idea, I thought she was doing some stress eating and I didn't want to give her a complex." I liked the movie. It was honest and it depicted the real world and some real-life struggles. (68.217.155.2 01:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)Brother Jack)

Brother Jack, I wish more people and Pastors,Priests etc thought like you.--70.146.150.238 (talk) 21:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

What I've written seems too pov for even my tastes. I'm an Evangelical Christian who has taught in Christian schools and have attended Evangelical churches for nearly 20 years - and I quite enjoyed the film, knowing that it was written by "unbelievers". It was a good attempt at a critique of the evangelical movement, but ended up becoming, in my own words, "A parody of a stereotype".

I would love to say more at this point, but before my criticisms get removed, please try to edit them somewhat to make them more neutral. I'll try again in a couple of days.

--One Salient Oversight 08:06, 21 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I have deleted a hefty section of the "criticisms" portion because it is original research. Original research is not permitted in Wikipedia articles. Though the first part RE: the opinions of fundamentalist Christians about the film can be cited, I can find no citations of public critique of the plausibility of the film. I'm not even sure if it makes sense; you state that one of the most critiqued parts of the film was the inplausibility of Mary to hide her pregnancy from her friends and mother, but this is an important subtext of the film. The point being made was that her friends (who weren't even really her friends) were too self-focused to notice anything was going on. So was her mother, which was a comment the film was making (IE: what use is faith if you are so obsessed with the surface of what it means to be religious that you can't put it into practice towards those you love?) Meanwhile the characters who DID make time for Mary all figured out her pregnancy early on. If you can cite a reference the section should absolutely be re-entered, but otherwise it is original research. Also, watch your spelling, you managed to make eight grammatical errors in just three sentences. Pacian 10:14, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * "are stereotypes and are created especially for the audience to deride. This lends weight to the claim that the film has an anti-Christian bias." Not anti Christian, anti fundlementalist Christian. People who believe in the subtext of this film are no more or less Christian. UnlimitedAccess 14:11, 22 May 2005 (UTC)


 * " The main character, Mary Jena Malone, despite being in her final year of high school, seems unaware of the consequences of unprotected sexual intercourse. It takes her at least two months to become aware of her pregnancy. Young Christian Women, generally, are not this ignorant." Slightly false so removed it. She is quite aware of the consequences of unprotected sex, she just was young and thought it was her Gods will. Taking two months to find out your pregnant isnt that uncommon. Some women still menstruate during early pregnacy. UnlimitedAccess 14:11, 22 May 2005 (UTC)


 * "In one deleted scene, some of the main characters begin a serious philosophical discussion about the Christian faith - namely the spiritual status of those who have not heard the Gospel. Very quickly this discussion is quashed by Hilary Faye. This may give the impression that evangelical Christians do not spend time thinking about their faith." Removed because its a criticism of a deleted scene not of the film Saved! that everyone saw. It was deleted for a reason. UnlimitedAccess 14:11, 22 May 2005 (UTC)


 * "..is evidence that the film was aimed at a secular audience - one that wanted their own values supported." Its a little redundant isnt it? Every film tries to convey a point of view, art by definition is a form of expression, i.e. it is clearly trying to convince the audience of the writers/directors values and ideas. Im tempted to remove it, but doing so for my reasoning would be POV. I will sit on it for now. UnlimitedAccess 14:18, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Hey Unlimited, I really like the changes you've done! Great work. One Salient Oversight 21:04, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * "...her mother, who is shallow and hypocritical as well as involved in a sexual relationship outside of marriage" I just watched this last night and while the courtship is undeniable and Pastor Skip is torn about the possibility or divorcing his wife I'm pretty sure that by the end they never actually have sex. - schrandit 20:36, 19 March 2006 (EST)


 * I re-rewrote it. I don't see how being "anti-Christian" is "political," and I linked to sources criticizing the film, emphasizing what they say.  I couldn't find any source that claimed the film "endorsed the 'homosexual lifestyle,'" but I left that in in case anyone else can.  I thought the film had many good roles in it (gotta love the lone Jew being a rebel) but was sunk by its dogmatic antidogmatism and its being a satire of a satire.  I am not Christian &mdash; in fact, I've likely had thoughts similar to those of the filmmakers &mdash; but I can tell when something's written out of prejudice rather than from direct experience.  It is an entertaining film, but it is rather disturbing to think that this is going to be many people's image of middle-America Christianity. Calbaer 23:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

disinformation
"The film is not critical of Christanity, as all of the good characters are Christians, except for the one Jewish character. At the end of the film, the characters do not abandon their faith, but rather they feel that some of the things that their parents and peers told them was the will of God, really was not. This is not a critic of Christanity, the film is critical of some leaders within the Christian community."

huh? if you ask me, this is way off. the main characters, or at least one, remains spiritual at the end of the movie, but where can anyone site that they are still christian? macully caulkin (or the actor he portrays) even states in the movie that hes "not really christian" the feeling i get coming away from the movie is that mary finds any god that exists would be too great to be confined to laws and such (essentially religion) and she seems to be for the most part agnostic and begining to explore god on her own terms.

also: "(the movie is a) larger critic of Christian fundamentalists that are arrogant, talk down to the disabled or non-Christians, and replace God's law with their own selfish and materialistic wants and fears."

this seems to suggest that "God's law" (presumably the old and new testaments) is opposed to materialistic wants and fears. maybe this is a little too beyond worth having a discussion about, but im sure many would argue that 'God's law' is very much about fear. ("Fear of God" is cited many times in the Old Testament) And even the outcasting of the disabled is biblicly supported in leviticus under god's word as allegedly given through moses. Now im not suggesting that we should argue this, but we could perhaps remove or modify this sentance for the suggestion it makes?

03:12, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

There is still a HUGE section of this article that is original research and very POV. It reads like a college student's English 101 essay about the film, and I can't see any way to neutralize it so I'm simply removing it. Pacian 06:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

This movie sucked. I only watched it because it had Macauly Culkin in it!!!&hearts; Plus does the jewish girl really worship satan? (in the movie) XxXShiaXxX

Synopsis/Analysis in Article
Does anyone else think the plot synopsis should be separated from the analysis? The synopsis feeds into the analysis, and might cause confusion. MadGirl


 * I've put "plot" and "analysis" headers in, because the article just launches into one big blurb of text and pushes the contents box halfway down the page. Content-wise, I'm not entirely sure what I could do to improve it without drastically altering it. >shrug< Hope that's okay. - Danaë, 26 April 2006

POV, analysis, criticism
It's frightening that an article about a film would wind up with POV... I see no reason for the existence of the "analysis" section...  Is that really encyclopedic? The Project Films page doesn't list it as a usual subtopics, and I feel that if the plot is described with enough relevant detail, analysis of the message should be left to the reader. At some point the article has to say, just watch the movie if you're that overwhelmingly interested, this is just the factual entry about it. Attempts at analysis of a film containing so many "hot issues" is bound to wind up POV, and in disagreement.

Thoughts? Rainman420 23:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If the criticism can't be sourced, junk it. A lot of movies actually get protested and what not by evangelicals, so unless at least a non-blog criticized this film, then its probably not notable. savidan(talk) (e@) 22:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This movie was made to get a reaction, so long as it can be done in a neutral tone (I know, that’s kinda hard) we might as well talk about the reaction it provoked. - Schrandit 04:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments
"A parody of a stereotype" I completely agree. I liked the movie, it was corny/sappy. All the characters were typical movie archetypes but for the most part we like them, i.e. the rebel with a heart of gold, the bossy/mean popular girl, the dorky girl who finally gets accepted then realizes the popular girl sucks, etc.

I came across this in a review of the movie, "Throughout the film there is an absolute corollary between being a Christian and being cruel. Each time someone declares that they’re no longer a Christian or are very angry with God then they become human and acceptable."

I really hope people don't think that it was an accurate portrayal of Christians. I don't follow the religion now but I went to a Catholic high school and religious study before that. I have never met anyone in my life even remotely close to the 'Christians' in the movie (In fact the most religious people I have met in my life went to public school).

"The film is not critical of Christianity, as all of the good characters are Christians, except for the one Jewish character. At the end of the film, the characters do not abandon their faith, but rather they feel that some of the things that their parents and peers told them was the will of God, really was not."

That's completely wrong; at the end of the film, the three protagonists' do abandon their religion or never followed it in the first place. Cassandra was Jewish, Rolland says at the beginning "I'm not really a Christian" and at the end of the movie, Mary does not remain Christian. She says that life cannot be random, there must be a god. She becomes agnostic, believing there is a god but he does not interact with us.


 * Actualy that sounds CHristian to me, so I"d say we don't really know she' stays Chirstian. Unless you can show something to the contrary?Kairos (talk) 08:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)