Dreamin' Wild Movie Review (2023) — Beau Bridges, Casey Affleck, Walter Goggins, Zooey Deschanel

Brothers Donnie and Joe Emerson in the film Dreamin' Wild/Zurich Film Festival.

Walter Goggins on set/ MoviePlayer.It

Once upon a blue moon a songwriter comes out with tunes so slow, so cool, so soulful, that you cannot just help but immerse yourself. It starts infecting your soul, and you cannot help but tap your feet, sing along, and find yourself humming the song days later. The sound is timeless—is it the '70s, '80s, '00s retro? Songs so cool that Jimmy Fallon declares it's his favorite song he's been listening to.

But the only problem is no one's ever heard of the band or the music.

Until now.

Until some vinyl-scrabbing crategrabbers in a Montana thrift store, reached the bottom of the barrel, and came to surface with 1979's Dreamin' Wild by brothers Donnie and Joe Emerson.

No one had ever heard of this album, or the artists, until Seattle-based vinyl collector Jack Fleisher found it in the back of the stack. And loved it. And began posting it on vinyl forums online. And every vinyl freak decided they wanted a copy of their own.

It's 2011—and the music hadn't hit the airwaves for some 30 years. The indies and the collectors dig it. And then Jimmy Fallon declares that the soulful crooner Baby—sounding as if it emerged from any of the great '70s acts—is his favorite song of the year. And it begans infecting everyone's ear who gives it a listen. Baby gets recorded by several different artists.* Pitchfork writes a review of the album. Other outlets, including The New York Times want to do a story on it, but nobody has a copy of the album.

The reason? Almost all the original pressings—except for the few that had made it out of the house—were still sealed in boxes in the Emerson's parents' basement. It had been a commercial, and apparently artistic, flop for the Emerson's. But apparently not so any longer.

Light in the Attic, a Seattle-based boutique record label helmed by Matt Sullivan specializing in bringing to light and repressing long-forgotten records, had gotten their hands on Jack Fleisher's copy and wanted to give the album the proper release it deserved after 30 odd years.

All that happens, and more. The re-release, the media press, the legendary tour, but first Matt Sullivan must find the Emerson brothers—from their rural abode in Fruitland, in eastern Washington. After the commercial failure, Joe stayed on the family farm, toiling at woodwork and logging; while Donnie, who had dreamed of music his whole life, attempted to lead a moderately succesful attempt in the industry, but with no lasting impact—until now.

This is where Dreamin' Wild, the film, comes in. It features Casey Affleck, brother of Ben Affleck, as Donnie Emerson; his brother Joe Emerson is played by the perfectly cast, good-natured Walter Goggins (whose affable ah-golly-gee-shucks disposition, also on display in his role as a country preacher in The Righteous Gemstone's, shines through here.) Donnie's wife is played by the adorable Zooey Deschanel. His father is played by veteran actor Beau Bridges, and Chris Messina plays the talent agent, master of repressing Matt Sullivan. And the film's cinematography of sweeping fields, and mountains, a paeon to the rural life, evokes Terrence Malick, who is mentioned in the credits and was co-producer with this film's director (Bill Pohlad) on other films.

Having a dream come to fruition after 30 years. Planting a crop and getting no result. Crafting an album that no one hears. Wishing and wishing and hoping and dreaming until you can't dream anymore. The stress of life has squeezed every last dream out. You walk in a haze, having forgotten your childhood hopes. But then the phone rings. And everything changes. The years the locusts have eaten are over, and it was all a dream.

Your dreams weren't too wild. Your wildest dreams are about to come true; it's just around the corner. If it happened for Donnie and Joe Emerson, it can happen for you too.

Buy the album or DVD here.

Tu B'av – the Jewish Day of Love and Romance?

Girls in Israel dancing during Tu B'Av at school in Hadera. Wikicommons Creative Commons license

There is a Jewish holiday that I knew nothing about a few days ago. I knew the summer holiday of Tisha B'av (the ninth of the Hebrew month Av), but I had never heard of its cousin that follows six days later: Tu B'Av = the fifteenth of Av.

While Tisha b'Av commemorates the destruction of the Temple and resultant tragedies that have befallen the Jewish people, Tu b'Av celebrates marriage? A sort of Jewish Valentine's day?

According to the sages, there is a deep mystical meaning that arises with this often overlooked holiday.

In modern Israel, based on an ancient biblical practice, Tu b'Av is a time for the young girls to don white dresses and go out into the fields and dance to attract potential suitors. In modern Israel, it is time to celebrate, and encourage romantic love, with young people going on dates, flirting, and enjoying candelit dinners.

As we know, romantic love is a picture of divine love, and specifically of the love between G-d and Israel. G-d is depicted as the lover, and Israel is depicted as the beloved maiden, which is the rabbinic interpretation of the Song of Solomon. Christians similarly believe that it is the love between Christ and His bride, the Community of Called-out Believers.

According to the rabbis, however, Tu b'Av marks the time when the sins of Tisha b'Av are overturned. It is sort of a mini Day of Atonement, coming six days after the horrible destruction of Tisha b'Av.

The Tisha b'Av – Tu b'Av connection

According to the sages, the calamity of Tisha b'Av came about because the Israelite spies that entered Canaan gave the people a bad report of the land. This was seen as a denial of Go-d's deliverance of the Israelites. G-d had brought them into a beautiful land flowing with milk and honey, and all they could do was complain about it and say how bad it was! Thus, G-d instituted a ḥerem, a ban, of destruction on that day, which has continued to this very day.

But Tu b'Av was a reversal of the Tisha b'Av ban!

Because of the sin of the spies, the people cried that night (the night of Tisha b'Av). G-d accordingly instituted a punishment for them due to their lack of faith. He decreed that all males between the ages of 20 and 60 would die in the forty years wandering in the wilderness. The men accepted their punishment, and according to the sage Rashi, would dig their own graves on the night of Tisha b'Av each year. They would then lie down in their graves, and await until the morning. In the morning, Moses would go through the camp and cry out, Let the living separate from the dead! If the man was still living, he would arise and be thankful for his life. The dead would be buried in their spot.

This practice went on for 40 years every summer. Finally, on the 40th year of the wandering, on that particular 9th day of Av, something different happened. The men made their graves. In the morning, they awoke and not a single man had died! They assumed they had made a mistake in their reckoning, so they went back to their graves the next night, the 10th of Av. They woke up the next day alive! They were so pious, believing that they had still made a mistake, that they returned to their graves. They did this 6 nights in a row. Finally, on the 15th night of Av, they saw the full moon in the night sky, and realized that the entire male population had indeed survive unscathed. They realized that G-d had reversed the decree of judgement against them. The day, the 15th of Av, became a celebration of God's mercy and love!

Other occurrences on Tu b'Av

1. During Temple times, wood had to be cut down from the trees. After the 15th of Av, the sun starts losing its intensity (in Israel), going into fall and winter. Accordingly, wood cut after this date could not be used for the Temple — because the lessened intensity of the sun might not dry it out enough and it could decay. The work of cutting all the wood for the Temple was thus completed on Tu b'Av. This great accomplishment made it a day of celebration!
2. Jeroboam ben Nevat, the bad king of Israel, installed roadblocks forbidden Jews from making pilgrimage to G-d's Temple during Passover, Sukkoth, and Shavuot, the three pilgrim feasts. Hoshea, the last king of Israel, removed these blockades. This happened on the 15th of Av.
3. When the Romans massacred the Jews of Beytar during the Bar-Kochba Revolt (132-136 AD/CE), they refused to let the dead bodies be buried for three years. When the Jews returned to the bury their dead, they found the bodies undecayed, and they buried them intact on the 15th of Av.

Tu b'Av in the Mishnah

In the Mishnah, the compilation of oral commentary on the Bible completed in the 2nd century CE by R. Simeon ben Jose, the sages discuss the tradition of Tu b'Av. On this day, it is recorded, the the young maiden of Jerusalem would go out and dance in the vineyards. This is recorded in Mishnah, tractate Taanit, chapter 4, section 8:

וּבְנוֹת יְרוּשָׁלַיִם יוֹצְאוֹת וְחוֹלוֹת בַּכְּרָמִים

They would go out dressed in white clothes, so that no one could distinguish between rich and poor and judge between them, causing embarassment to any.

שֶׁבָּהֶן בְּנוֹת יְרוּשָׁלַיִם יוֹצְאוֹת בִּכְלֵי לָבָן שְׁאוּלִין, שֶׁלֹּא לְבַיֵּשׁ אֶת מִי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ.

Literally, When the daughters of Jerusalem would go out in white garments, borrowed (from each other), so that no one would put to shame whoever did not have it

They would dance in the vineyards, and the young men would come to watch.

וּמֶה הָיוּ אוֹמְרוֹת, בָּחוּר, שָׂא נָא עֵינֶיךָ וּרְאֵה, מָה אַתָּה בוֹרֵר לָךְ. אַל תִּתֵּן עֵינֶיךָ בַנּוֹי, תֵּן עֵינֶיךָ בַמִּשְׁפָּחָה. שֶׁקֶר הַחֵן וְהֶבֶל הַיֹּפִי, אִשָּׁה יִרְאַת ה' הִיא תִתְהַלָּל

And what would they say (to the boys)? Young man, lift up now your eyes and regard what you will choose for yourself! Do not give your eyes to Beauty, give your eyes to Family! [That is, a good family] Grace is deceptive, and beauty is vain. A woman who fears Hashem, she shall be praised! [Prov. 31:30] They also quoted [the next verse]: Give to her from the fruit of her hands! Let her deeds be praised in the gates!

According to one interpretation, the girls from good families but without beauty would say Pay no attention to Beauty, but pay attention to Family!, while the girls with no family or looks would say, Grace is deceptive, and beauty is vain. But a woman who fears Hashem, she shall be praised! The point is, though, that each was equal, and the boys could only choose the ones that was best for them, all things considered.

Tu b'Av in the Bible

In the Bible, in Judges 21, this custom of Tu b'Av is briefly mentioned, indicating that it had ancient precedent. The Tribe of Benjamin had been, effectively, cut off from Israel. They had no wives. So the elders of Israel gave them a plan: they were to go to the Tu b'Av vineyard dance and take wives for themselves. This effectively reinstated Benjamin into the fold of Israel, and permitted inter-tribal marriages.

19 וַיֹּאמְר֡וּ הִנֵּה֩ חַג־יְהֹוָ֨ה בְּשִׁל֜וֹ מִיָּמִ֣ים ׀ יָמִ֗ימָה אֲשֶׁ֞ר מִצְּפ֤וֹנָה לְבֵֽית־אֵל֙ מִזְרְחָ֣ה הַשֶּׁ֔מֶשׁ לִ֨מְסִלָּ֔ה הָעֹלָ֥ה מִבֵּֽית־אֵ֖ל שְׁכֶ֑מָה וּמִנֶּ֖גֶב לִלְבוֹנָֽה׃

And they said, Look, the annual feast of YHWH is being held at Shiloh. (It is north of Beth-El, east of the highway going up from Beth-El to Shechem; and south of Levonah.)

20 וַיְצַו אֶת־בְּנֵ֥י בִנְיָמִ֖ן לֵאמֹ֑ר לְכ֖וּ וַאֲרַבְתֶּ֥ם בַּכְּרָמִֽים

And they instructed the sons of Benjamin, saying, Go and lie in wait in the vineyards!

21 וּרְאִיתֶ֗ם וְ֠הִנֵּ֠ה אִם־יֵ֨צְא֥וּ בְנוֹת־שִׁילוֹ֮ לָח֣וּל בַּמְּחֹלוֹת֒ וִֽיצָאתֶם֙ מִן־הַכְּרָמִ֔ים וַחֲטַפְתֶּ֥ם לָכֶ֛ם אִ֥ישׁ אִשְׁתּ֖וֹ מִבְּנ֣וֹת שִׁיל֑וֹ וַהֲלַכְתֶּ֖ם אֶ֥רֶץ בִּנְיָמִֽן׃

As soon as you see the daughters of Shiloh going out to dance in dances, let each man jump out of the vineyards and catch for themselves his wife from the daughters of Shiloh. Then take off for the land of Benjamin!

23 וַיַּֽעֲשׂוּ־כֵן֙ בְּנֵ֣י בִנְיָמִ֔ן וַיִּשְׂא֤וּ נָשִׁים֙ לְמִסְפָּרָ֔ם מִן־הַמְּחֹלְל֖וֹת אֲשֶׁ֣ר גָּזָ֑לוּ וַיֵּלְכ֗וּ וַיָּשׁ֙וּבוּ֙ אֶל־נַ֣חֲלָתָ֔ם וַיִּבְנוּ֙ אֶת־הֶ֣עָרִ֔ים וַיֵּשְׁב֖וּ בָּהֶֽם׃

The sons of Benjamin did so. They carried off women, according to their numbers, from the dancers whom they had seized. They took and they returned to their inheritance. They built their cities, and they lived in them.

This was a day of rejoicing for Benjamin, because Benjamin was added back into the fold of Israel, and was allowed to intermarry any other tribe. Israel was united, in some small sense.

In a mystical sense, Tu b'Av looks forward to the day when all Israel's sins will be remitted, and the Messiah will return and catch us up together with him in the air. The Messiah will take us to his abode, and it will be a day of rejoicing and feasting and celebration. There will no longer be any tear. All the calamity of Israel will have ceased. And the marriage supper of the lamb will commence.

Sources:

• The Mishnah Elucidated: A Phrase-by-Phrase Simplified Translation with Basic Commentary Schottenstein Edition, edited by Rabbi Nosson Scherman and Rabbi Meir Zlotowitz; ArtScroll Series Mishnah Vol. 6: Tractates Taanis / Megillah / Moed Kattan / Chagigah (Rahway, New Jersey: Mesorah Publications, 2015)
• Rabbi Chaim Richman, Parashat Eikev: The Circle Dance of Tu B'Av, Jerusalem Lights - Rabbi Chaim Richman YouTube.
• Sefaria.org (for the Hebrew texts)

The Planned Obsolescence of Media

Media and electronic devices have a planned obsolescence. Now by media, I am excluding, in this instance, print books; I am specifically referring to when media is accessed through electronic devices, and physical audio-visual materials.

It used to be, one could go in the store, and find a physical item one was looking for. Anymore, if one does venture into the store, one is hard pressed to find a copy of what one is looking for. Instead, the retailer will tell you to order it online. Now, I came into the store to the find the item. I did not come into the store to be told to order it online. If I had, I would have done that first.

Anymore, however, the absence of items/copies of what one is looking for is pushing people to order online even if they don't want to. Sometimes, I'll ask the kind retailer (if that is his business) to order it for me directly and I'll pick it up at the store. I would rather him or her do it than me order it online, on principle's sake. I would save money if I ordered on Amazon. But I refuse to support giant techopolies whose vested commercial interest is in selling my data—and me—to outside vendors, and who are achieving world domination at a greater rate every day, digitally if not in the future physically.

To give a silly example, I went into the hardware store to find some batteries for a stopwatch that stopped working. The sales rep knew exactly what batteries they were by name/model #, however, when we got to the aisle, they were nowhere to be seen. Not only were they out of stock, but apparently, there was no place for them either. I had him order a set for me, which turned out to be around $8. However, I later looked on Amazon and I could have got them for $4.

For an old person to make such claims is a rant. For me, a young, tech-capable man who knows all about computers, programming languages, is just ludicrous. Or so they say.

I have the right to live in a world where I can find something at the store. I'm not upset that I have to order it through the store. In fact, I want to support the store, and I'd rather order through them. I am more upset by the fact that using the store is almost become the alternative option, the weird option, the backwards option.

Physical Media

It is getting hard to find physical media—CDs, DVDs, VHS, Blu-ray, Cassette tapes, LPs, LaserDiscs, and whatever other format imaginable. There was so much joy for me in finding these physical items, holding an album in my hand, poring over the liner notes. Digital doesn't cut it.

Let's say you want to watch a movie, maybe an older one. You have several options: (1) see if your local library carries it. They may or may not, but are often glad to order it for you. (2) Go to a store. The likelihood of you finding it at any store is pretty minimal. Walmart, Target etc. only have the latest releases. There are no video stores any more, so good luck with that. A pawn shop or thrift store is hit and miss. (3) Go online. Here you can try to find it on Craigslist, or maybe Amazon if you choose. Amazon will most likely have a copy listed. You can also pay Google or YouTube or Apple to stream it/rent it. I refuse to pay any money for a streamed copy of a movie that is going to buffer over my slow internet on a tiny screen. Others certainly disagree. It may be likened to attending a movie; however, a theatre is a completely different experience, namely, the anticipation of driving there, waiting in line, buying a ticket, ordering popcorn, and sitting in a darkened room with many other enjoying the same spectacle. The process of sitting at a screen may be similar, but I have not yet been willing to pay for a rented-streamed movie, whereas I'll gladly pay $12+ for a movie theatre.

The Hunt

I've been on a strange hunt. I've been searching for a MacBook (I love Macs—don't shoot me) computer with a DVD drive. Apple last made those in 2012. So I am effectively looking for a 9+ year old computer, which sounds very illogical. However, not is there not anything wrong with such computers, but they work just fine, can run the latest Mac OS, or if one wants Windows 10 or a 64-bit/32-bit Linux distro.

Apple has forced me to make it harder to watch DVDs. I am not going to stop watching DVDs any time soon, nor ripping my CD collection. So take that Apple. Yes, I can get an external drive. But I want an internal drive. So I will continue to search for my golden, DVD MacBook until the cows come home or Jesus returns. Whichever is first.

So all y'all can take the latest spotify, streaming, pay-all-your-money to Netflix and Hulu and every other company and service out there, while I'll be quietly enjoying my DVDs and records and LaserDiscs and whatever other physical media I can find. My paradise.

Hollywood vs. America by Michael Medved review

Hollywood vs. America

How many parents have struggled to find a movie that they feel comfortable taking their kids? Or children choosing a movie to watch without embarassing their parents? Former film critic Michael Medved addresses these issues in his 1992 book Hollywood vs. America.

Medved essentially shows how Hollywood continues to churn out films that reflect values and messages that fail to resonate with American citizens. These movies benefit Hollywood directors' own sense personal mission, but do even generate box office returns. Essentially, America is ignoring these movies. Because these movies appear to attack American values.

Medved organizes his Hollywood expose into five parts, divided into several categories. Medved argues that Hollywood produces movies that attack traditional values, attack religion and clergy, attack the family, attack traditional morality, and promote violence and gore.

This book is not just a scare tactic. Medved has intimate knowledge of Hollywood, having viewed a half-dozen movies every week and befriended many Hollywood elite. What is impressive is his vast array of evidence, which includes plot points from films and box office and admissions data.

For his first point, that Hollywood attacks religion, Medved trots out a plethora of priest-bashing flicks. These include The Runner Stumbles (1979), Monsignor (1982), Agnes of God (1985), Heaven Help Us (1985), The Penitent (1988), Last Rites (1988), We're No Angels (1989), Nuns on the Run (1990), The Godfather, Part III (1990), and The Pope Must Die (1991). Nearly every one of these show priests abusing their power or even murdering their parishioners -- which should be stated, the latter is not known to have happened in real life. Medved exhibits a few films that are positive towards individual clergy, but still take a dim view of church hierarchy. These ambivalent films include True Confesions (1981, Robert De Niro), Mass Appeal (1984, Jack Lemmon), The Mission (1986, Jeremony Irons and Robert De Niro), and Black Robe (1991). One could also add The Blues Brothers to this list, which depicts two men who engage on a "godly" mission but depicts horrifying nuns.

What is incredibly interesting is that Hollywood directors have no clue that faith is a large part of American life. Medved recounts how he would ask industry members at parties what percentage of people attend church or synagogue in America, and they would typically respond less than five percent. In fact, Medved points out, the number is closer to 40%, according to a January 1992 from Newsweek. Seventy-eight percent pray regularly, and more than 90% believe in a personal deity. Only 4% of Americans were totally nonreligious: religion is not a part of their lives, they do not attend church, and have no religious affiliation. When presented with this evidence, Medved explained, Hollywood literally cannot believe it, because everyone with whom they interact is irreligious as well. According to a 1983 Public Opinion survey, 45% have no religion and 93% of Hollywood seldom or never attends religious services. One television producer addmitted he did not know a single director, writer, or actor who attended church or synagogue. While these numbers have certainly changed in the thirty years since this book's publication, they show how vast the gulf between Hollywood and the rest of America. (According to 2014 survey data from the Pew Research Center, 36% of Americans attend religous services regularly, 55% of Americans pray daily, 75% of Americans identify as religious, and 25% identify as irreligious. The irreligious number has grown tremendously, while church attendance has only dropped by 4% since 1992.)

Hollywood also likes to portray Bible-believing Christians in a certain way. In Crimes of Passion (1984), Children of the Corn (1984), Poltergeist II (1986), The Vision (1987), Light of the Day (1987), Salvation! (1987), Pass the Ammo (1988), The Handmaid's Tale (1990), The Rapture (1991), At Play in the Fields of the Lord (1991), and Guilty as Charged (1992), the films portray Christians and pastors as crazed, apocalyptic murderers. Anyone who took these films seriously would have a seriously skewed view of American Protestants.

The next category that Medved examines is the family and morality. It seems that Hollywood does not show a single happily married couple. One sitcom of the 1990s, Married with Children, shows a married couple who are constantly having problems and whose love life is as passionate as geriatric bowling night. Film and television show a constant barrage of people having sex before marriage, outside of marriage, but not a single example within marriage. Medved is not trying to be a prude but wishes that Hollywood could at least show happy married couples. Contrary to the myth that 50% of people will get divorced (which was simply the number of marriages in 1981 compared to the number of divorces in that same year), 90% of all marriages survive, according to Louis Harris's 1987 book Inside America. In addition, 80% of Americans were satisfied with their marriages and would marry the same person again. When Hollywood pushes the idea that marriage is a death trap and that only sex outside of marriage and adultery is exciting, they are not reflecting the actual facts and values of American life, but their own values, which stand outside of the mainstream.

In the chapter Encouraging Illegitimacy, Medved illustrates a series of shows in which the main character not only has a baby outside of wedlock but even have babies via artificial insemination. While it is interesting for shows to explore issues like this, when it becomes so widespread in Hollywood as Medved shows that it does not present any alternatives, it starts to become suspect. When the former alternative lifestyles become mainstream, you know it's Hollywood. All sociological evidence shows that children reared in single-parent families or families without a father are more likely to fail school, commit crime, and be incarcerated, a rabid epidemic assaulting the black community. While it's fine for Hollywood to explore gritty situations, it seems irresponsible of them to only show non-nuclear and non-traditional families, which are still the minority in America.

Another idea that Hollywood presents is that kids know best. Anyone can see this principle in practically any film, it shouldn't be controversial to prove that. Basically, the parents are complete bimbos who need their children to enlighten them or show them the way. In some cases, the parents are evil and abusive. While the kids-know-best idea seems harmless, it is the cumulative effect of nearly every film without stop that corrodes American youth's respect for parents and authority (within reason, of course). In reality, most parents do know better than their children and want the best for them. Children of course teach their parents things too, but most parents truly do have their children's best interests at heart.

Finally, Hollywood makes films that seem to be anti-American in values. In 1991, the current war was the Gulf War, which was wildly popular by the vast majority of Americans. The fact that Hollywood did not have a single cinematic depiction of this war shows how out of touch Hollywood is with mainstream America. Of course it's fine to have opinions, but Hollywood would rather force anti-war messages on patriotic Americans than reflect what Americans value (patriotic heroes - this may have changed by now, with a gamut of films like American Sniper, Zero Dark Thirty, and Chris Hemsworth in 12 Strong).

Medved points out that all the films he cites which exhibited content that did not resonate with Americans were not box office successes. Put another way, Americans did not turn out for films which showed content they did not like. The few times Hollywood produced family friendly and G/PG films in this timeframe were massive successes, indicating that audiences showed up. So if Hollywood made bookoo bucks on family films and made pittances on films with rape, murder, and mayhem, the obvious question is why didn't they go where the money was?

In Part 6, Medved seeks to answer that question. He outlines the history of Hollywood and their ideas which brought them to this day. In 1922, postmaster general Will H. Hays created a code by which studios agreed to abide. The Hays Code prohibited displays of sex/nudity, obscene language, gratuitous violence, ethnic slurs, priest-bashing, and mocking any religion, among other things. In 1930, an Hays Office was established, which reviewed every film and gave it a Motion Picture Seal of approval. In 1966, however, Jack Valenti became president of the Motion Picture Assocation of America and removed the Hays Code. Finally, the embattled Hollywood directors were free from the crushing weight of the code, despite the fact that the greatest directors of the all time -- Alfred Hitchcock, Howard Hawks, John Ford, Billy Wilder, George Cukor, Frank Capra, and Orson Welles -- produced magnificent films under the Hays Code.

Medved convincingly shows that 1966 was a pivotal year. In 1965, the Academy Award went to The Sound of Music. In 1969, it went to the X-Rated Midnight Cowboy. Intriguingly, attendance plummetted. Since 1953 (after the invasion of television), movie audience stayed fixed around 40-49 million attendees per week (before TV, in 1948, it had been at 90 million). In 1965, still under the Hays Code, attendance was at 44 million a week. In 1969, it plummeted to 17.5. What could have happened? Since then, attendance never went above 23 million (except in 1984), but stayed around 18-19 million. Attendance had effectively halved. After this, grindhouse and exploitation films, which had previously been completely sidelined, began to place elements in major Hollwyood releases. To put the data more convincingly, out of 1,010 films released between 1983 and 1989, all G films grossed a median of $17.3 million. PG titles earned a median of $13 million. For PG-13 releases, the median was at $9.3 million, and for R films, the median gross box office was $8.3 million (less than half the box office of G). What these data show is that audiences respond more favorably to films they can take the whole family to, which of course generates more ticket sales than that of a single stag going to a late-night erotic film alone.

I do not have children, so it's hard to know what movies I would allow my kids to see, but I can assure you that Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Saw II will not be allowed. I was exposed to violent films like Kill Bill and The Matrix at a young age, and I turned out okay. But what Medved shows is it's not a single movie here, a single movie there, it's the cumulative effect of all the films which reflect values which do not seem to align with the vast majority of Americans, who value traditional values (things like patriotism, respect for elders, family, treating people well). In other words, common decency. An obvious critique of Medved's work is he seems to read these films too literally. Many directors see their work as satire or political commentary or social release -- they are fantasy, and if we didn't have violent films, we would all kill each other. However, such arguments fail to take into account that vast majority of Americans are not violent and do not want to kill others (except perhaps in self-defense). Therefore, it seems irresponsible for Hollywood to be churning out films with values we do not appreciate. How many times have you had to cover your kid's eyes? (I know it's happened to me.) It would be easier if one didn't have to do that. The answer is clear: if you make movies for the whole family, the people will come. One also wonders how much has changed since 1992. I think that faith has become more prominent in Hollywood, with shows like God Friended Me. Violence has definitely increased (Inglourious Basterds, John Wick, various war movies etc.). Sex is in nearly every show or movie, so that hasn't changed. Interestingly, when you apply Medved's thesis to 2019, it holds true: the top box office hits were films that were not facile but that everyone could attend without fear of objectional content. Avengers Engdame, $858.3 million, yes it was dark, but it was still family friendly. The Lion King, $543.6 million. Toy Story 4, $434 million. Frozen II, 430.1 million. Captain Marvel, $426.8 million. Spider-Man: Far from Home. Star Wars Rise of Skywalker. Aladdin. The same could be said for 2018 (with the exception of Deadpool 2). Medved is right: build a family movie, and they will come. (However, the bigger problem here is these are all fanchises and series). Maybe what Hollywood needs is not just to merely follow family-oriented formulaes but a revival.

Book link

Sex and Marriage in the Bible

Many people seem to think that God does not care about sexual immorality. Rather, the opposite is true, he does care what goes on in the bedroom. This concern is not because he is prudish or like some cosmic Santa Claus, snooping on what we are doing, but rather because he loves his children and wants the best for us. In short, sex in marriage follows God’s law and allows God’s blessing in our lives. This article will explore some of what is said in God’s law, then the New Testament, and how it applies today.

Sex and Marriage in the Torah

God stated his instructions for life, the universe, and everything, in the Torah (Hebrew, instruction). God revealed the Torah to Moshe on Mt. Sinai after delivering the children of Israel from bondage in the land of Egypt. The Torah reveals God’s guidelines for his covenant community.

Most of what the Torah says about sex and marriage is in the books of the Torah called Leviticus and Deuteronomy, specifically chapters 18 and 22/24, respectively. Leviticus is a document that lists the cultic requirements of God’s people, that is, what God expected of those who followed him. Deuteronomy (from the Greek word meaning second law) is Moshe’s retelling and re-extrapolation of the law, right before God brought his people into the land of Israel and Canaan.

Leviticus 18

Leviticus 18 lists all the prohibited sexual relations in which God did not want his people engaging. These are listed with the formula you shall not uncover the nakedness of…. Most of these are prohibitions against incest. Among other examples of incest, God in Leviticus prohibits sex with one’s sister (and half-sister), a mother and a daughter at the same time, two sisters at the same time, a women experiencing menstruation (called niddah in Hebrew), humans and beasts, and two men sleeping together. These relations oppose God’s plan for marriage, which is stated at the end of the creation narrative in Genesis 2:4, where God states, Therefore, a man shall leave his father and his mother and cleave to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. The reason God did not want his people engaging in these practices is because they violate his standard of a one-flesh union, which he designed to bring the most blessing in life. God wants people to know the relationships that will bring life.

Deuteronomy 22/24

In Moshe’s retelling of the Law in Deuteronomy 22, starting at verse 13, he divided sexual relations into several categories: a married women who was found to not be a virgin, the wife of another man, a betrothed virgin, and a single virgin. He also divided them into actions that happened in the city versus the countryside. We will go through each in turn; I will provide summaries, from which the reader can study the text for herself. One must recognize that these are hypothetical, legal situations, from which one must draw broader conclusions.

A (verses 13-21) A man marries + non-virgin girl = punish the girl.

In this unfortunate situation, the man finds that the girl he married is not a virgin. While the particular method this was found out may be barbaric, the standard which we can extrapolate from this ancient law is that God does not approve of whoring in one’s father’s house (victims of rape, abuse, assault, and incest are not in the purview of this category and God has grace on victims; any Bible preacher who claims this refers to such victims should be denounced from God’s word). God sees intentional multiple sexual partners as a violation of his standard stated in Genesis 2:4, and this passage opposes such behavior.

B (verse 22) A man + a married women = punish both.

If a man sleeps with a women married to another man, that is the definition of adultery, which is also listed in the Ten Commandments. This behavior, under Mosaic law, requires the death of both parties, so as to purge the evil from amongst you. While we may not execute adulterors today, this verse shows how seriously God considers the violation of the marriage covenant.

C (verse 23-25) A man + an engaged/betrothed virgin + in the city = punish both

The linch pin of this legal case is that a man sleeps with someone else’s fiancee in the city. The assumption is that since it happened in the city, she may have been able to cry out and halt the assault. Since she did not cry out, she must have consented. Again, this hypothetical, legal case should not be used to condemn those who were assaulted and unable to scream. Back in those days, where neighbors were close and families lived together, it must have been hard to find a truly private place; therefore, any assault would have been seen or heard rather quickly; since she did not resist or call attention in such a scenario, it must not have been an assault in the first place, but a predetermined liaison between two consenting parties. Today, with our thick walls, dense urban jungles, and dark alleys, it may be harder to draw attention to an assault.

D (verses 25-27) A man + an engaged/betrothed virgin + in the country = punish the man

This passage should clearly show that God does care about the victim of rape. In this scenario, a man rapes someone’s fiancee in the countryside. Since there was no one to hear, we cannot know whether she consented or not. Therefore, the assumption is that the action was an assault. You shall do nothing to the young woman; she has committed no offense punishable by death. Rather, the man is tried as a rapist.

E (verses 28-29) A man + a virgin = marry her

In this final, hypothetical case, a man finds a single virgin (that is, not betrothed or engaged to anyone). The man has violated her, whether she consented or not. If the law allowed her to marry another man, we would end up with situation A, above. Rather, the law required that the man marry her. She shall be his wife, because he has violated (others, humbled) her. He may not divorce her all his days. Lest someone say that this requires marrying one’s rapist, Jewish law required that the woman had the final say in the marriage: she could refuse him. Rather, the standard is how highly God considered the sanctity of marriage: that playing around with sexual intercourse should lead to marriage.

Practical

In ancient Israel, there were three ways to finalize a marriage. These principles were reaffirmed and stated in the tractate of Jewish law called Mishnah Kiddushin 1:1. These three are through money (i.e., a token of marriage, e.g., a ring), through contact (kesubes, with a ketubah), and through sexual intercourse (kiddushin). All three are commonly fulfilled, but only one is necessary to fulfill a binding marriage. These standards are a distillation of what God says in his word. Kiddushin comes from the Hebrew word kadosh, or sanctified, set apart, or holy. Sex is so holy that it sets the couple apart as a unified whole. God considers sex as so sacred that it binds two people together (this can be inferred from Gen. 2:4, as well as situation E, above). When two people have sex, they are bound. Since in God’s eyes, bound people are married, therefore, they should formally and legally recognize it.

In early America and England, pastors to finalize a marriage were in short supply. A couple would want to get married, and declare their intentions to the local community (usually posted as the banns on the church door, and left up for three weeks for anyone to see). Since the vicar only came by once a year, the community would allow the couple to live in marriage until the vicar solemnified the covenant that was already sanctified by the sexual act. This was a legal marriage in the eyes of the community, and in the eyes of God, because it was understood that this covenant was a commitment and not just having sex to break up a week later. This was a serious and completely binding marriage. The old Christmas song mentions this custom: In the meadow we can build a snowman Then pretend that he is Parson Brown He’ll say, Are you married?, we’ll say, No, man But you can do the job when you’re in town. This song reflects the practice of how the vicar/parson/or priest would finalize the unions that had already been consented to in the community.

In Scottish common law, also based on Biblical principles, a man and a woman could declare their love and commitment to each other, and then have sex. Church law (canon law) recognized this practice, known as handfasting, as a valid and sanctified marriage. (However, even though the Catholic church allowed the practice, they disapproved of it, wanting to maintain control over marriage.) In Kiddushin, a couple can be married by having sex; the same idea is found in the Scottish common law practice of handfasting.

There are many couples today who are living together and not married. The difference between such cohabitating unions and Kiddushin (God’s standard), is that in the former there is no clear commitment to covenant. People can break up and move in and out at will. There may be some couples who say vows to each other with this intention of commitment, which would be seen by God as valid, but most probably do not have that sacred understanding; then the question is, Why not just get married? In our modern society, if two people want to have sex and live their lives together, there are no reasons to not get married. In fact, there are many financial incentives, including tax reasons, to be a married couple. In addition, a marriage provides a sort of insurance policy that the person won’t just leave you, although this understanding is being eroded by divorce and adultery, which is all the more reason to have a sacred understanding of marriage, as God reveals in his word.

In modern (American) society, a marriage is solidified with two things. Spiritually/emotionally and legally. Spiritually, a couple exchange vows; and then legally, they receive a marriage license from the local authorities. God sees the marriage as valid without the legal license, but society does not, and there is no reason to not get the license. Some libertarians would maintain that government cannot authorize a marriage, but I see it as government sealing an action that the couple and God have already sealed. However, one should see that step as less of a government intrusion and more of a reflection of the Kiddushin practice of money and contract, which finalize a marriage. There are precious few reasons why a couple should not get a marriage license, and convenience and cohabitation is not one of them. Even in this time of covid, when people cannot gather, it is beautiful to see couples going to the local courthouse and clerk to get married. Their commitment to marriage is admirable. And, of course, the wedding ceremony is not necessary; but it is a nice time for people to recognize the already binding marriage (many couples sign the legal license during the wedding, which may be seen as a parallel to the ketubah; Jewish couples sign a license and a ketubah).

Sex and marriage in the New Testament

If you only think such ideas were for ancient times, let me tell you that Jesus and the New Testament re-affirm the godly principles of marriage revealed in the Torah.

Jesus himself said that if anyone looks at a woman with lustful intent, he has already committed adultery with her in his heart. This extremely high standard shows how serious God takes the sanctity of marriage. Mere lust is a violation of marriage. Jesus’s statements are deliberately hyperbolic to prove a point.

One of Jesus’s follower, Rabbi Shaul (his Roman name was Paulus or Paul), taught that sex bound a couple together. In his epistle to the kehille (community) at Corinth, Shaul wrote:

don’t you know that he who is joined to (holds fast to) a prostitute (pornei) becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, The two shall become one flesh. But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. Flee from porneia (harlotry, sexual immorality). Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body.

Paul knew that sex binds, it’s not just bodies, it involves one’s soul as well, and that binding oneself to a prostitute was a spiritual act of binding souls. He drew the analogy between uniting with the Lord and uniting with a prostitute; both are spiritual acts. God wants us to be bound in soul to him, not bound in soul to prostitution. Paul knew the one-flesh teaching of Genesis and taught it from heart.

In a letter to the kehille of Jewish Christians (Hebrews), Paul taught that God considered the marriage bed with utmost regard.

Let marriage be held in honor by all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the pornei (sexually immoral) and the adulterous.

Lest people think that God does not, Paul taught that he did and that God would judge the immoral, just as the Torah of Moshe required that people be punished for violating these standards.

Conclusion

God considers sexual immorality a problem for two reasons. Marriage is the foundation of society, and two, it is a symbol of God’s relationship with his people. God wants human societies to flourish, and upholding marriage is the best way to do so. People cohabiting leads to break ups, broken hearts, and does not contribute to economic security and the secure upbringing of children. Only a secure marriage can do that. Secondly, marriage between humans is a reflection of God’s marriage to his people. God does not want his people "whoring" with other gods and idols; he wanted a monogamous union with himself. Violating God’s standards of marriage is ultimately violating God himself. As a couple are bound together in marriage, planning to never leave each other, so God plans to never leave or forsake us. He gave us a wedding covenant (the rabbis state that the Torah was his ketubah), and he promises to take care of us. The wedded relationship is a symbol of what God did for us. And if you find yourself in a different standard than this, know that God is eager to take you in and is only a prayer away. These laws were not from a prudish god, but were designed for our benefit, so that we could live life with God and each other in a state of human flourishing.

Parshas Aḥarei Mot: Enter the Void

For the third time in a row, the Jewish community reads Parshas Aḥarei Mot, Leviticus 16–18. This parsha describes how YHWH (ʾAdonai) explains to Moshe a ritual for Rosh Hashanah. Every year, the priest was to take two goats. The text describes one goat as designated for YHWH and the other goat as designated for ʿAzazel. The priest would cast lots for which designation the goat would receive. The lucky goat would then be sacrificed to YHWH as a sin offering, whereas the unlucky goat would be led into the wilderness and pushed off a cliff onto the jagged rocks below. This second goat shall be set alive before the LORD, to make atonement over him, to send him away for Azazel into the wilderness (Leviticus 16:10, Jewish Publication Society Tanakh, 1917).

No one really knows what ʿAzazel means. Traditional English translations translate it as scapegoat following William Tyndale's idea. The ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew (a translation called the Septuagint) translated it as one carrying away evil (Greek apopompaios). However, the Hebrew has a clear parallelism between the lot designated for YHWH and the other for ʿAzazel, indicating that ʿAzazel is a personal entity.

In fact, ancient literature bears out the idea that it was a personal entity. In the apocryphal Book of Enoch, which was written before the time of Jesus, ʿAzazel appears as the name of one of the fallen angels. Apparently, the writer of the Hebrew text understood ʿAzazel to be some sort of demonic entity.

For that reason, most modern English translations no longer translate it as scapegoat, but as Azazel, the name the Hebrew text uses. Apparently, the Hebrews believed that one goat was dedicated to God while the other was given over to a demonic presence that abided in the wilderness.

The ritual consisted of the priest offering a bull as a sin offering and a ram as a burnt offering for himself; the priest offered the two goats on behalf of the Israelite community. The priest is to let the Azazel-goat left standing before the LORD, to make expiation with it and to send it off to the wilderness for Azazel (Leviticus 16:10, Jewish Publication Society Tanakh, 1999). The Hebrew reads: yaʿamad-ḥai lifnei ʾAdonai kaper alaiv. Leshalaḥ ʾoto laʿAzazel hamidbarah, literally, standing before YHWH to cover upon it. To send it to Azazel in the wilderness. The Hebrew word kaper, literally translated by English cover, indicates that the goat atoned for the sins of the Israelite people. That same word can be translated into English as atonement and, more fancily, as expiation. Basically, the idea is that the sin is removed so that God no longer sees sin, but purity, so the relationship between God and humanity is repaired and made at-one. Through a symbolic, ritual action, the goat bore their sins into the wilderness, outside the camp, so they no longer had to deal with them and could commune with God.

Later in the passage, we read that the priest was to take the Azazel-goat (after slaughtering the bull offering on his own behalf) and recite all of Israel's sins onto the goat. The text describes the ritual like this: Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat and confess over it all the iniquities and transgressions of the Israelites, whatever their sins, putting them on the head of the goat; and it shall be sent off to the wilderness through a designated man. Thus shall the goat carry on it all their iniquities to an inaccessible region; and the goat shall be set free in the wilderness (Leviticus 16:21–22, Jewish Publication Society Tanakh, 1999). This goat becomes the sin-goat, bearing all the sins of the people into the wilderness, where Azazel dwells. By symbolically removing the sin and ritual impurity from the camp, the goat allows the camp to be a place of holiness, where God can then dwell. Now that their sins had been taken away, the next parsha of Leviticus expands on the idea of being God's holy people.

Since this reading falls on Pesach as well as Good Friday and Easter, I find an interesting parallel with this goat and Jesus. Just as the goat was led out of the camp into the wilderness, so Jesus was sacrificed outside the camp. In fact, the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews makes this same point. So Jesus also suffered outside the gate, the writer wrote, in order to sanctify the people through his own blood. Therefore let us go to him outside the camp and bear the reproach he endured (Hebrews 13:13–14, English Standard Version). Just as the Azazel-goat carried the sins of the Israelite people outside the camp, so Jesus as the lamb of God took away all the sins of the people outside the walls of Jerusalem.

Since the camp, for the Israelites, had to be a place of holiness, where no ritual impurity resided (this parsha is followed by Kedoshim, Holy People), and also the reasons menstruants and people with other flows had to leave the camp, so also the goat of sacrifice had to be outside the camp. Jesus was sacrificed outside the city walls of Jerusalem, thus not giving the city ritual impurity through blood-letting. Just as the goat effected expiation for the inhabitants of the camp, so Jesus's sacrifice to YHWH effected expiation for the inhabitants of Jerusalem and his followers. May the story of the Azazel-goat inspire us to continue our process of at-one-ment with God.

On Jewish Identity

The single greatest threat to Jewish identity is intermarriage. I do not hope to sound like a fear-monger, but this assertion is true. If a Jewish person intermarries, the likelihood that the children will be raised Jewish reduces considerably.

In Jewish law, a Jew is someone with a Jewish mother. If your mom is not a Jewess, then you are not a Jew. Jewish identity does not depend upon the father, only the mother. So if a Jewess marries a goy male, their children will be Jewish. If that male Jewish child, in turn, marries a goy female, then their children are no longer Jewish. In order for the next generation to be Jewish, the man must marry a Jewess.

The reason for this legislation is obvious. Children spend more of the time with their mothers and so the religion of the mother will more likely pass down to the next generation, even with a goyishe father. I know a Jewish man who married a goyishe woman, and the children were not raised Jewish. Sadly, these individuals have, through intermarriage, cut themselves off from the Jewish community, whether they intended to or not. If they wish to return to Judaism, they may and are encouraged to do so, but it is sad that they have lost their Jewish heritage so easily.

There is a precedent for matrilineal descent in the Torah. After the Jews were re-allowed entry into the land of Israel by King Cyrus in 538 BCE, the high priest Ezra found that the Israelite males had intermarried with foreign women. He and the governors of the land understood that marrying non-Jewish women was a problem because the children would not be raised Jewish and to fear the Lord. The governors told Ezra, The people of Israel, and the priests, and the Levites, have not separated themselves from the people of the lands, doing according to their abominations, even of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and the Amorites. For they have taken of their daughters for themselves, and for their sons: so that the holy seed have mingled themselves with the people of those lands: yea, the hand of the princes and rulers hath been chief in this trespass (Ezra 9:1-2). Ezra discovered that the Israelite men had sinned by marrying foreign wives.

Accordingly, Ezra told the men to divorce their non-Jewish wives. Ezra 10:10-11, KJV, reads, And Ezra the priest stood up, and said unto them, Ye have transgressed, and have taken strange wives, to increase the trespass of Israel. Now therefore make confession unto the LORD God of your fathers, and do his pleasure: and separate yourselves from the people of the land, and from the strange wives. Ezra then instituted court proceedings so that they could divorce their non-Jewish wives in an orderly fashion. It took them two months to process all of the divorce claims (10:16-17). Even the priests had intermarried, and they too had to divorce their non-Jewish women. All these had taken strange women, and they put them away with their children (English Standard Version marginal note, Ezra 10:44). Accordingly, they divorced them.

In 445 BCE, the reformer Nehemiah faced the same problem a century later. While walking around Israel, he discovered that the Jewish men had married goyishe girls.

In those days also saw I Jews that had married wives of Ashdod, of Ammon, and of Moab: And their children spake half in the speech of Ashdod, and could not speak in the Jews' language, but according to the language of each people. And I contended with them, and cursed them, and smote certain of them, and plucked off their hair, and made them swear by God, saying, Ye shall not give your daughters unto their sons, nor take their daughters unto your sons, or for yourselves. Did not Solomon king of Israel sin by these things? yet among many nations was there no king like him, who was beloved of his God, and God made him king over all Israel: nevertheless even him did outlandish women cause to sin. Shall we then hearken unto you to do all this great evil, to transgress against our God in marrying strange wives? (Nehemiah 13:23-27 KJV

Nehemiah clearly thought that intermarriage with goyishe women was a big deal, enough that he exerted physical violence over those men. Whether such violence was warranted, Nehemiah believed that marrying Jewish, godly women was of utmost importance. Additionally, Nehemiah saw that the children were not being educated as Jews and were taught goyishe practices, such as idolatry, from their non-Jewish mothers.

A critical observer may point out that King David was descended from a goyishe girl, Ruth the Moabitess. However, it must be pointed that Ruth the Moabitess joined herself to Israel and therefore converted to Judaism (before converstion to Judaism became standardized). She was no longer a goyishe girl, but an Israelite maiden. Naomi told Ruth to return to her Moabite homeland. However, Ruth refused and joined herself to Israel. And [Naomi] said, Behold, thy sister in law is gone back unto her people, and unto her gods: return thou after thy sister in law. And Ruth said, Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God: Where thou diest, will I die, and there will I be buried: the LORD do so to me, and more also, if ought but death part thee and me. When she saw that she was stedfastly minded to go with her, then she left speaking unto her (Ruth 1:15-18 KJV). Ruth joined herself to Israel and then became a naturalized Jewish citizen.

Someone might say that Torah forbids Moabites and Ammonites from joining Israel. Indeed, it does. Deuteronomy 23:3-6, KJV, says, An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the LORD for ever: Because they met you not with bread and with water in the way, when ye came forth out of Egypt; and because they hired against thee Balaam the son of Beor of Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse thee. Nevertheless the LORD thy God would not hearken unto Balaam; but the LORD thy God turned the curse into a blessing unto thee, because the LORD thy God loved thee. Thou shalt not seek their peace nor their prosperity all thy days for ever. However, the Hebrew word (a masculine singular) indicates that male Moabites and Ammonites are in view. The word used for Ruth the Moabitess is the feminine singular. Therefore, Ruth was not prohibited from joining Israel and converting to Judaism. Hopefully, one can see that from the Torah, it is true that the women are the ones who confer Jewish identity and it is not an extrabiblical invention that the rabbis made up. Rather, it is a faithful practice to God's commands.