My notes on Geoff Botkin’s talk at the film festival, How to Anyalyze a Hollywood Film. This session was by no means intended to be comprehensive, but rather a crash course in critical thinking as it applies to movies. Likewise, my notes are not at all comprehensive, but just the highlights that I managed to record, poorly paraphrased by me.
Mr. Botkin played very short clips from the film, pausing frequently to discuss. In all, we probably viewed less than 5 minutes of the film, but this generated enough discussion to fill the entire time alloted for the session and then some. He first commented on individual phrases from the opening scenes, encouraging us to examine why each word, phrase and line applies in the dialogue. Remember that in most situations every line was carefully scripted and planned.
- You are all going out there as individuals. Children are taught at graduation that they are going out as little kingdoms unto themselves.
- Woodrow Wilson School of International Policy: A fictitious school named after the 2nd most treasonous president in terms of constitutional fidelity, the one who instituted the income tax system and established the Federal Reserve Bank. Who do they honor, and why do they choose him? Look around at other public schools – who are they named after, and why?
Norman Rockwell’s slice of culture & worldview provided many teachable moments to the Botkin family: dating, courtship, relationships, kissing, marriage. We can find the same opportunities around us, e.g. in the names of institutions and in small and casual lines of movies.
- Graduation ceremony: how did it originate? When these scenes are portayed as a grand celebration in the life of every good citizen, do our homeschooled children begin to believe that they have missed out on something?
- Tiger mascot: our children need to know about the idolatry of collegiate sports that captures the hearts of so many. Cheerleaders, etc.
Movies like this will define true love, dating, international affairs, and more for your children. They should not be learning such things without our guidance and direct input.
- Dear Diary, Wellll, it’s me. Brand new college graduate-slash-princess… What is the traditional attitude expressed in a journal? What should it be? What do we already know about the heroine from this entry? We see how she defines herself. Her diary is a scrapbook of experiences that revolve around herself. The traditional purpose or tone of journals were for interpreting life in light of scripture, often being later used as roadmaps for descendents. This one is flippant and self-centered.
- …He went off to tour the country with his band. This is what all cool guys do, right?
- I’m a little nervous [about becoming queen]. I didn’t have a class called “How to Run a Country 101″ That would be the first 5 books of the Bible.
- And I’ll sit on a throne. Is that scary or what? Yes, the thought of a girl like this on a throne is scary. Ruling takes a lot of wisdom and responsibility. Our children need to have some understanding of how a monarchy works. We see the nature of palace life, and the characters of palace life. Incidentally, you never touch the royal personage, though we see it happen in the film when her tiara is knocked off her head and replaced. Some of what is portrayed is realistic, while some is not. Use this as an opportunity to learn the difference.
- We see the princess. Do our daughters want to be like her? What do we think of her dress? We hear gossip. Deportment among friends: do we squeal when we see each other at a formal occasion? How do we interact with young men?
- “Shut up!” (said by queen, signifying amazement) Authority figures are shown to be cool, progressive and lovable when they engage in pop culture and jargon.
- This is the 21st century! We’re moving into the 21st century. The message is, “Let us join Hollywood in making war against blood (family), soil (traditions), father, mother and religion.”
- Arranged marriage: the film will define what we think of this. We learn that marriage needs chemistry and sparks, and love as popularly defined. We don’t subscribe to arranged marriage but we need to define these issues, not Hollywood.
- Machiavelli: he is mentioned, and merits discussion.
- His snake of an uncle: point out the impropriety of speaking this way about others, and the fact that it also would not happen in this setting.
- Valley girl mannerisms, speech, facial expressions, general deportment. Don’t let our daughters imitate this behavior!
- Sorry. [single word, said in a sulk] A typical 21st century apology, showing no repentance or contrition. Apparently accepted by the queen, who immediately responds by supporting the actions for which the princess apologized.
- I have my own mall! Materialism presented as desirable. What girl wouldn’t want her own mall?
- I just love to look at him. While reviewing photos of eligible prospects for an arranged marriage, a photo of an ineligible young man is included. All the women approve. Lust is encouraged.
- His boyfriend thinks he’s handsome also. Approved by characters, who obviously subscribe to modern definitions of sexuality.
- He looks…decent… How should we make marriage decisions? Based on appearance?
- You can be a princess today just like me. This is set as an example of leadership and ruling.
- She sneaks out the window to meet the cute boy even though she is engaged and just hours away from marriage. Apparently this is ok because they don’t engage in sex.
What are the virtues being talked about when Christian pastors say that this movie is “loaded with virtue”?
Just a few of the messages to be found in this film: Eschew duty. Follow your heart. Changing your mind at the altar is not a big deal. Good boys are boring. Bad boys are the interesting ones, because they have a magical, debonair, resourceful presence. Boring boy is masculine, honorable, etc. Interesting boy is an effeminate, woman-chasing cad. Occasional good advice is later rejected in favor of a “better” course of action.
One of our most important responsibilities is to see that our children marry well; this film is a primer on marrying poorly.
In summary, don’t be fooled by a lack of gratuitous sex, overt violence, or swearing. There can be far more harmful and insidious messages within the movies we watch, especially when we are trusting enough to allow our children to consume them freely or unattended. Everyone has a worldview, and they do not develop in a vacuum. Every film contains and communicates messages and a worldview, and those who don’t watch with a critical mind and eye will absorb those messages and find themselves molded by that worldview. It is our duty to shape and form the worldviews of our children rather than allowing Hollywood to do it for us.
Related posts:
I’m glad you shared this, Kim! After your earlier post I was curious what Mr. Botkin said about the film.
That’s pretty fun Kim. Our children’s movie viewing is pretty sparse, but my husband has always had this perspective and has often said that it would be easier to address a cuss word than all the subtle attitudes and messages in most “approved” movies.
I actually watched this for the first time with my daughter. Big mistake. I probably would have thought much longer and harder before showing it to her had I seen it first. I took the advice of others and read reviews indicating that it was a wholesome movie for my tween. What I can say is that this movie is that it didn’t open up a great deal of conversation between my daughter and I.
When the Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants came out and some of our friends were taking their kids to see it, I was ambivalent. Waited for it to come out on DVD and watched it by myself one night thanking the good Lord I had not shown this movie to my daughter blindly.
Excellent review.
You brought up a lot of things I hadn’t even thought of. Thanks for sharing.
did you change the original post on the blog about PD? I had commented a few times but to no avail. I never approved with the movie… for many of these same reasons. good post
Will this lecture be avaialble for purchase? Our family has never attended the festival but we are so excited about it!
Agreed w/ you assessment- though we’ve never seen the movies. Chose not to for the reasons you stated. Sadly, we know several who approve of the movie b/c it is clean. I would not agree!
Interesting post..I’m sure the talk was even more interesting.
I think it’s a bit ridiculous that he brought up a graduation ceremony. I don’t remember it being a big deal, only a couple clips at the beginning, as an easy way to say that she was graduated. Graduation ceremonies are everywhere – for high school kids, middle school kids, college kids, anyone who goes to something that’s not homeschool. In fact, some homeschool kids have graduation ceremonies as well, or at least graduation parties… I graduated from a public high school, so I don’t have personal experience as to the “will our homeschooled children feel like they missed out on something” comment. But that is most likely going to come up in some other way simply because graduation ceremonies are, well, everywhere.
As for the mascot..the point made is good. Not sure how the point was made from the mascot’s presence (again, can’t remember much from the beginning of the movie).
“Dear Diary, Wellll, it’s me. Brand new college graduate-slash-princess… ” I guess I’m a bit confused about the point he tries to make on this one. As a teenage-for-a-couple-more-months girl, that sentence sounds *completely* natural to me to start off a new journal or diary. It doesn’t seem flippant, and what are journals if not self-centered? They record one’s days, or they record experiences, or they have introspection. There can definitely be a purpose beyond oneself, but by the very nature of it being one person’s recording of their lives or thoughts or prayer life, it is going to be self-centered in some way.
The “how to run a country 101″ seems to me like just a reference to a college course catalogue, and how no college would offer that course. It also seems to me that this would be referring more to things like the specifics of how to be diplomatic, current events, etc. which the Bible would not have in it because it is not from this century or anywhere close!
The prince-viewing which comes from the antiquated law is definitely not a part of the movie I enjoyed. Amusing perhaps, but not in a way that needs to be shown to the age this movie was targeting. In fact, that whole part of the plotline brings up a lot of questions. Mia is shoved into a situation where she has to pick a spouse, without knowing him, someone “appropriate”, so that she can be queen. Does she go about it the right way? Not particularly. Should she have been put in the situation in the first place? No. Is it even a good plot line? Not really…
“You can be a princess today, just like me” seems to me to be much more a lesson in how to cheer up cute little children..not leadership. Perhaps it’s a lesson in “how to get the public to love you”. That being said, it’s one of the sweetest points in the movie, I think…
I liked the boring boy a lot better, actually.
I’m not sure how Christian pastors could say this movie is “loaded with virtue”…I just don’t see it except in the lack of blatantly objectionable content.
I much prefer the first film, for several different reasons. And I somewhat/mostly agree with this assessment, but not completely..
Sorry, that was a bit long!
ok, i have written this quite a few times and will try again and hope it goes through
#1 i didnt like the movies, esp. the one (i think #2) where the princess stayed in the park all night with the boy. I certainly would not condone that with any of my children, male or female, and the movie made it all cute and all so like it is ok to be out all night unsupervised and unmarried and very young, WRONG…
#2. if PD is ok, why not hannah and miley and teen beat magazine then? where do you draw the line once you open the door.
#3. hollywood claims to be for feminism (which i agree it is) but they put young girls in these STUPID roles, (hannah and miley included) and wonder why girls these days are boy crazy??? the movies are encouraging this stupid behaviour of young girls.
#4. ok, for the sake of arguement, lets say the PD movies are virtuous as some claim they are? I dont get that at all but for arguement lets say they are. NOW, examince the life of Anne Hathaway off screen. She is definately not virtuous. She lives (or lived) with her boyfriend, condoes homosexuality and more. What if the girls who love PD now want to be a fan of Anne? What will they do when they find out who she is off-screen? “MOM and dad why can’t i see other movies Anne is in?”…
1 of the above is enough for me to not condone the PD movies…
ang
Do you think you could address how we SHOULD make marriage decisions? I appreciate your opinions, but I would love to hear the positives too. Not just what we ought not do, what we should. Thanks.
Thank you so much for sharing your notes! I really appreciate the Botkins’ encouraging such a close analysis of cultural tendencies. As Mr. Phillips has said, culture is religion externalized; thus, whatever “culture” Hollywood writes into their movies, even if not fully intended, will expose their beliefs, which are generally in conflict with Biblical principles. How cunning they are to slip in these bits of ungodly beliefs where we might accept them and never even notice. That should serve as a motivator for us, as Christians, to study the Word and learn to use our minds and think critically.
Thanks again!
Tiffany
This is a great post and an interesting point- it would be much easier to edit out a cuss word than all of this subtle Hollywood agenda. Maybe you could do a post on movies actually appropriate for tween girls?
Also, the Woodrow Wilson School of International Policy is not fictitious. It is a real life school and it is part of Princeton University. It was named after Wilson because he was the 13th President of Princeton and was passionate about preparing students for careers in international policy and diplomacy.
I appreciate the Botkin’s and what they do. However, just like any of us, on some issues they go way overboard. This movie analysis is certainly one of them in my opinion. Some of the parts I agree with them, but it’s not a big enough deal to me to prohibit my children from watching a movie like this.
I think the graduation ceremony thing is just nit picking for the sake of it, especially as most Christian schools and even home school groups have them and they are special and yes, I certainly DO wish I’d have been able to have one. I don’t want my children to miss out on everything in life because I’m so nit-picky about what they can and cannot do.
I agree with the poster who said that journals are normally self centred. I also don’t see anything wrong with that. I think a teen ought to be allowed to have SOME place to him or her self.
I am glad that the movie brought out the bad sides of arranged marriage, because we know several people who think arranged marriage is a wonderful thing, and I’d hate for my children to think that.
I guess I also don’t see the problem with formal occasions. They can be done modestly.
We believe in separation, but we don’t believe in trying to show our children that they can’t do anything, either. Sometimes I think it is hard to strike a balance. A lot of the stuff they mentioned just seems awfully nit picky. I’m very concerned myself about the subtle messages in films, but I’d rather leave my concern for where the subtle messages really matter.
Mrs. W.,
I don’t think Mr. Botkin was saying that every one of these points meant that the movie was unfit for viewing. He was critiquing, not just criticizing. There’s a difference. He was showing how each line and scene presents the creator’s worldview and can provide endless talking points and teachable moments for parents and children who want to be self-conscious about entertainment.
I neglected to include his various praises for the movie – nearly all of them were artistic in nature: how they used a very brief scene to efficiently and effectively communicate about a person’s character; the timing, lighting, choice of angle for a particular shot, etc.
But I do think that you and I aren’t on the same page about many of the issues raised. For example, his point about journals is that they weren’t always self-centered as they are today; you simply affirm that they are self-centered today and you don’t see a problem with that.
All this is to say that you might not agree with everything that Mr. Botkin said about this movie, but his session wasn’t titled, “What’s Wrong With Princess Diaries 2.” It was “How to Analyze a Hollywood Film.” I, for one, learned a lot.
TK,
Thanks for the info on Woodrow Wilson @ Princeton. I suspect Mr. Botkin knew this (and maybe mentioned it while I was busy typing) but I certainly didn’t.
He did point out that many, many other schools are also named after WW so the point still stands that he is lifted up as an honorable man in spite of his offenses against the US constitution and the American people.
Kim,
I am amazed that you got all this typed up in your notes!
Thanks for sharing this information.
Bethany W
Homeschooling, Mom of 4 in Missouri
Rooting for a college football or other college team is idolatrous?
Are other sports a problem as well, or just college sports?
There are a lot of problems we as Christians face in this world, but I can’t say this one ever even crossed my mind as a potential sin…and including it as such in the analysis to me minimizes areas of genuine concern. Anything in *life*, period, has the potential to get in the way of one’s walk with God, but signaling out college sports amidst every other possible distraction strikes me as peculiar.
Just my respectful two cents, of course –
Sign me puzzled in CA,
Laura
My twelve year old loved this movie. I don’t have the same concerns as you as I feel the example she lives with every day of a loving, Godly marriage will out weigh any 90 minutes of fluff she might catch in a movie.
I want to pick my battles. This movie was watched and forgotten. She actually gave a very good commentary on the flaws of the movie when it was done.
I guess my point is that showing our kids how to live will have much more impact on them than not allowing them to watch a movie that while, it may be flawed, had no lasting impact on her life.
Just my two cents. I always enjoy you’r opinions.
Julie
I totally understand about worldviews being portrayed in movies. They are portrayed in any movie. A movie like Fireproof portrays a GREAT worldview. I love analyzing movies and literature…studied it in college when I was unsaved and it was from a worldly point of view, but I have still been able to analyze movies.
I think it’s important for us to analyze everything we read and watch. It’s important for us to only let our children view things that we want them to see, which might be different for each family. You wrote something about Star Trek a few days ago and it appeared as if you enjoyed it…this is something I never want my kids to see but I’d be fine with Princess Diaries. This isn’t criticism as much as a point of we have different kinds of standards when it comes to these things. I see nothing wrong with that, and it’s important for each family to stick to their guns even though other families (whose business none of it really is) might not agree with them.
We are responsible for our own family, not everybody else’s.
I first saw PD1 when I was a non-Christian, and even then, I didn’t find the movie “Loaded with virute”. I thought it prompted lust, bad language (Shut up, etc), degraded marriage (between the parents of Mia), made it okay to bail out on a friend because you’re a princess, and made fun of the monarchy, who actually are very important in many countries -especially small ones, like what Mia is supposed to come from.
So there is no WAY I’d ever let a kid of mine watch it. Because if that’s what I thought when I was a non-Christian, I shudder to think of watching it now…
Out of curiosity, who is the *most* treasonous president?
Abby,
I may be opening a great big can of worms here, but I assumed he meant Lincoln. Let’s just say that whoever wins the war writes the textbooks.
The civil war was *not* fought over slavery, and Honest Abe was no hero. He centralized the US government, and gave it power the writers of the Constitution never intended for it to have.
Things have never been the same since.
Interesting… Lincoln? I assumed he meant FDR. Many people blame the New Deal for just about everything. I would agree that the aftermath of the Civil War more drastically changed the Constitution in incorporating the Bill of Rights against the States. Is that what you meant? (Sorry, I know that this post wasn’t about U.S. history at all. Feel free to not publish this comment. I get carried away about history.)
Mrs. Kim, it was wonderful to meet you at the SAICFF this year, and to get to visit with you for a while.
Thank you for sharing your notes!