Where is our heart?

What is most important to us as a culture? What is it that captures our collective imagination and inspires us? What motivation, what hunger, drives us? As I sit and ask myself these questions, so many things zoom through my head. Perhaps it is the drive to "get ahead," to "achieve the American dream." Who doesn't want their white picket fence, 1.8 children and golden retriever? Perhaps it is the drive to be remembered, to discover something, achieve something or write something that history will never forget.

I sit and think through all the noble and ideal ways to answer this question and smile to myself. Then I remember what Jesus said in Matthew 6:21, "where your treasure is there your heart will be also." So where is the collective American heart? Into what have we poured our money? What are the things in which we have chosen to invest? According The-Numbers.com the average gross income for a nationally screened movie is approx. 565 million dollars (including Box office, retail sales, and TV licensing). The average american spends 45 dollars per week on TV and movies (including satellite/cable subscriptions, theater attendance, retail purchases, netflix, and pay-per-view). If video gaming is added to the "entertainment" category the national average jumps by a staggering $42 average (leaving the total at $87--higher than the average weekly expenditure for housing). I find this both telling and disturbing. Americans are spending more money on entertainment than on the place they live. "Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." It seems that our hearts are invested in visual entertainment.

The Internet Movie Database (IMDb) tracks the highest grossing movies of 2013. I'd like to look at the #1 and #2 movies on which Americans have spent more money than any others. Both of these movies had sellout crowds, across the country, waiting for hours to see the midnight premier. We have culturally declared these productions so valuable that we spend both hours waiting in line and hundreds of millions of dollars on tickets. Lets take a closer look at what we have glorified. Fair warning: there will be spoilers.


#1 Bestselling Movie of 2013
Iron Man 3

Don't get me wrong, I love a good superhero movie as much as the next guy. However, I do find it unsettling that our country thinks this is the most valuable production of the year. This movie grossed just over 1.2 billion dollars in worldwide box office sales (that does not include DVD sales or TV licensing), Americans contributed over a third of that figure. 1.2 billion dollars means that it has generated more income in the past 7 months than almost thirty of the countries listed in the CIA World Factbook do in year. That worries me.

The plot of this film is not all that original. A really powerful bad guy tries to take the, now famous, Tony Stark (Robert Downing Jr.) down by threatening his girlfriend, Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow).

First, lets look at the plot. The driving force behind the movie is Tony Stark's search for significance and identity. The whole movie centers around the tension between Stark's obsession with his work and his desire to love Ms. Potts (and by love, I mean have sex). He is torn between his awesome superhero self and the normal everyday self. So, he challenges a terrorist organization that has almost infinite resources, along with a bunch of super-human minions. When you are stressed and struggling with your home-life, the obvious solution is an extended killing spree of morally compromised individuals. Of course, everything works out. Stark's obsession with work ends up saving his life and Potts kills the main bad guy (while mostly topless). The whole movie ends with all the Iron Man suits gone and Stark beginning to handle his identity crisis. The crazy thing is I'm not sure whether he actually figures out his identity issues. At the very end he kinda decides to go with the "everyday version," but the very last line is "I am Iron Man!" Good plot...kill all the bad guys and still leave confused about who you are. Great role-model!

Robert Downing Jr.
(Tony Stark)

Second, lets take a closer look at the primary protagonist, Tony Stark. The protagonist of any story should always be examined closely. Almost all stories are designed to generate empathy toward and cause the audience to identify with the protagonist. The first thing I would like to note is that the protagonist of the 21st Century is never normal. Tony Stark is developed as a genius and technological prodigy from a young age. He is portrayed as the kind of man that never fails. Once he reaches adulthood he became a drunk womanizer who showes the world that he was utterly entitled to everything he took. This changes a little bit once Potts enters the scene, but she really ends up mothering him (which, granted, he needs) more than being his companion. Ultimately, he is a man who takes what he wants, when he wants it (by any means necessary). He has everything. He has toys (cars, robots, cool super-suits), he has women (most notably the lovely Ms. Potts), yet he wants more out of his life. He can have anything he wants, and he can do anything he wants but it isn't enough. He becomes obsessed with his work (his suits) because they define him. It seems that Stark is meant to elicit empathy from the majority of upper-middle class American men (the largest theater-going demographic). His identity is in his work, which (ironically enough) falls smack between his cool superhero self and his normal everyday self. His meaning in life is 100% centered on these very high-tech pieces of metal. Am I the only who sees a problem with that? No wonder he is having an identity crisis, I would be too. Stuff...check! Girls...check! Meaning...nope! No meaning = stress, and when stressed - kill! Awesome ideas to broadcast to the public.

Gwyneth Paltrow
(Pepper Potts)

Third, lets take a look at the secondary (supporting) protagonist, Pepper Potts. She is an odd character who is fairly representative of the identity crisis American women are facing today. She is portrayed as a strong self-assured woman who rises to the top of the corporate ladder and succeeds there. She is also shown as feminine and very "in love" with Stark (a weakness according to classic feminism). The interesting thing is that she is really the anchor in their relationship (contrary to traditional gender roles). So what is she supposed to portray? Exactly! She epitomizes the 21st century woman: strong, self-possessed, financially independent, and utterly emotionally dependent upon a man. She is the walking feminist paradox...but that is the ideal held up for the women of my generation. Best of luck to you all. She ultimately joins Stark in both of his stress-relieving hobbies: sex and killing. Yet another great role-model.

A few things to think about from this movie:
- Everyone who is successful in this movie is beautiful. Implication: if your not good-looking you will fail.
- All the good guys get everything they want. Implication: if your not getting everything you want you must not be a good guy.
- People who speak out against the main characters die. Implication: if your goals are good, human life is expendable.
- The police and government are never there to help the good guys. Implication: the authorities are impotent and unable to help.
- Intelligence is Stark's greatest asset. Implication: those who are smart are entitled to take what they want when they want it.

Killing, sex, and an identity crisis; it all made for the best selling movie of 2013...1.2 billion dollars.



#2 Bestselling Movie of 2013
The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

This just makes me sick. When I read the books a few years back, I never dreamed that they would make movies. The entire point of the story is to show that the Capitol is no longer fit to govern. This is shown by the fact that the people in the Capitol sit comfortably in their living rooms and cheer children on to murder in an arena. I don't understand how our country can go to these movies all excited and walk out talking about how good it was. People murdering one another for the entertainment of others will never be "good." In the book Suzanne Collins made a point of criticizing those who watch the hunger games for entertainment (those in the Capitol, District 1, and District 2). Does our culture not see that they are doing the exact thing that made the Capitol unfit to lead? I was at the theater the night Catching Fire came out (I was watching Capt. Phillips-which I do recommend, by the way). There were lines that stretched almost a hundred yards into the parking lot. The entire lobby was full of stanchions with lines woven back and forth to use the space for people in line. There were probably more than a thousand people there to watch this diary of murder. Has the value of human life fallen so far that we revel in the portrayal of death? I pray that our culture still has time to right itself before God makes the same judgement upon us that was made on the Capitol. We have clearly lost the mandate of Heaven, the question is: is there still enough to redeem, or has this culture fallen so far that destruction is in order?

The cleverness of this plot is a tribute to the time and thought that Suzanne Collins put into the books. The story follows a relatively innocent girl as she realizes that her willpower and strength have given the general population hope. She has given them enough hope to rise against the tyranny of a government that takes their children away each year to fight and kill one another. Ultimately Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) realizes that she has become the symbol of a rebellion.

First lets take a look at the plot. Yet again, we find, in Everdeen, a charter who is in the middle of an identity crisis. She is no longer the hunter/provider for her family. Her victory in the last hunger games has left her almost unlimited material resources (especially in her poverty stricken district). Her family is never in danger of hunger or exposure and this leaves Everdeen without a purpose. Not only is she purposeless, she is also in the middle of a love triangle that includes herself, Peeta Melark (Josh Hutcherson) and Gale Hawthorne (Liam Hemsworth). She alternately leads on and cheats on both of them. The theme of the games is carried over from the first movie/book through a device called the "quarter quell." It is a special games that is held only once every 25 years. In this particular event the tributes are chosen from the previous victors (rather than the juvenile population of Panem). Everdeen and Melark are thrown back into the arena with all-star competition. This further complicates her relationship with both of the boys. Yet again we see the venting of emotion both on the part of Everdeen and Finnick Odair (Sam Claflin) through killing or violent outbursts. Is this the new norm? It would appear so; I mean, all the cool kids are doing it...

Jennifer Lawrence
(Katniss Everdeen)

Second lets look at Ms. Everdeen, our primary protagonist. She is introspective, fiercely loyal to her friends and family and very much searching for her identity. This seems to be a common theme. Why are primary characters so lost? Why do they not know who they are? Why is self-discovery such and integral part of the 21st century protagonist? It seems that we are a culture of the lost. If the protagonist is meant to cause a connection between the story and the viewer and the two most popular movies feature lost individuals, then it follows that American (and worldwide) viewers are identifying with characters who are lost. This has catastrophic implications. It means that people do not know who they are. They are seeing that it is alright to not know who one is as long as one does good. Everdeen is so confused about her personal world that she ends up in the middle of a love triangle. It isn't that the boys are fighting over her and she can't decide, rather she leads both of them on because they are both representative of two very different worlds. She can't decide who she wants to be, so she cheats on both boys with the other. This romantic give and take is her alternately flirting with both versions of herself. She tries so hard to cling to what she sees as right that all else falls by the wayside. For her (as with Stark), the ends always justifies the means.

Lets take a look some sketches of the other characters.

Peeta Melark - He is passive, gentle, soft and a baker (domestic) despite his obvious physical strength.

Haymitch Abernathy - He is conniving, manipulative, rude and a hopeless drunk. He is too sorry for himself to care about anyone else.

Gale Hawthorne - Clever, bitter and sometimes cruel.

Finnick Odair - Womanizer, brutal and emotionally broken.

It is interesting that there are no positive male characters. All of the men in this story personify most of the negative male stereotypes. This movie glorifies Peeta, shows respect for Gale, elicits sympathy for Haymitch, and makes Finnick look cool. There is a problem with that!

Finally lets look at other thoughts that this movie portrayed:
- Prim (Katniss's little sister) and Katniss both have to look out for their mother. Implication: Parents are inept and impotent.
- Peeta is portrayed as one of the best characters in the movie. Implication: men should be passive, gentle, soft and domestic.
- People murder for the entertainment of the Capitol and there were sellout crowds for this movie. Implication: America is disturbingly like the Capitol.

The Capitol was unfit to rule because of the means by which it maintained peace and found its entertainment. Where is the difference between them and us?



The collective American heart has been invested into this industry. What is it that we have really chosen to be valuable?