Narnia Film Ends AFA Boycott
Donald Wildmon's American Familiy Association has declared Disney "on probation," officially ending its nine-year boycott of the media giant. The AFA cites three "positive signs" as motivation for its decision: first, that Disney CEO Michael Eisner plans to step down in September; that Disney has dissolved its partnership with Miramax, which has historically released controversial films like Priest, Dogma and Fahrenheit 9/11; and that Disney is co-producing and distributing this December's The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe.
The Baptist Press News has run a detailed article on the story—which makes sense, because the AFA was only one of several religious organizations backing boycotts of Disney. The Southern Baptist Convention, for example, adopted a "resolution" called "On Moral Stewardship and the Disney Company," which would need consent of the full convention to overturn. The next SBC meeting is this June in Nashville. So will the SBC follow suit with the AFA? Says Richard Land, president of the SBC's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, "I learned a long time ago not to predict what a Southern Baptist Convention meeting in session may or may not do."
Meanwhile, elements of the UK press that love painting American Christian conservatives as combative and narrow-minded have predictably painted the AFA's announcement as a victory for Disney. In an article titled "Out of the lion's den: CS Lewis film saves Disney from Christians," the Guardian notes that "conservative Christians" are "heartened by Disney's decision to adapt The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe." Naturally, they get some facts wrong—such as the assertion that "Lewis's tales are traditionally read as thinly-veiled Christian allegories." That's not how they're read. It's what they are. That's like saying The Communist Manifesto is traditionally read as a thinly-veiled political tract.
But let's also be clear on this fact: Disney is not responsible for bringing Narnia to the screen. Walden Media is; Disney merely signed on as a producing and distribution partner. Walden Media commissioned the script, and hired the director. Walden Media initiated the project, and the film's executive producer is Douglas Gresham—who just happens to be C.S. Lewis' devoted stepson, and a passionate Christian. And Disney is doing nothing outrageously new in hiring publicists to promote the film to Chrisitan audiences.
What Disney is doing is simply making good business decisions.
Business decisions, not religious or moral decisions. Do we get that? And that's what businesses in America, by and large (particularly publicly-held companies) are expected to make. They are, after all, in business: to make money. If Disney didn't think they'd make money backing the Narnia films, they wouldn't be doing it.
From where Greg Wright (that's me) sits, the continuing story in the AFA's announcement is the shallowness and convenience of much Christian activism. In the same way that "Christian" media outlets quickly scuttled their proud refusal to air ads for "R" rated movies when one they actually liked finally came along (last year's The Passion of the Christ), the AFA is now dropping its boycott in part because Wildmon knows "there are a lot of evangelicals who are going to want to go and see" the Narnia film (as quoted in Reuters): evangelicals whose support for the AFA might crumble if the AFA kept telling them to boycott Narnia due merely to its association with Disney. Yet the AFA knows that "troublesome stains on the Mouse House," such as the Magic Kingdom's annual Gay Day, aren't going away anytime soon.
Personally, I believe the Disney boycotts to be wildly misguided; and to be fair, Wildmon has said that "the boycott of Disney is now a matter of personal conviction, rather than a matter of AFA ministry emphasis... We encourage people to continue boycotting if they believe that to be the right thing to do."
Boycotts should always be a matter of personal conviction, pure and simple. All matters of principle should be highly personal. And if, on principle, you believed that "R" rated movies should be avoided (which I obviously don't), then you should have avoided Gibson's Passion, too. If you didn't, you compromised your principles.
Likewise, if you believed Disney was worth boycotting nine years ago, you should make your boycott really count and vow right now not to see The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. Why? First, because Disney has not substantially changed its tune. Disney doesn't really care about Christians, or the Christian themes of Narnia. And it shouldn't, any more than it really cares about gay themes. What Disney does care about is ticket sales. That's merely good business sense—which I also consider generally misguided, by the way.
Second, and more importantly, your boycott now has real meaning because sticking with it will actually cost you something. What good is boycotting something you don't want in the first place?
May 31 Update: Apparently, the AFA has decided what's more important than boycotting Disney: boycotting Ford. Check it out. I just wonder what the AFA would do if Ford were to market a vehicle named "Aslan"?
June 6 Update: Aw, darn it! The AFA has already postponed the Ford boycott. I really wanted to see them force Ford to name a car after Aslan...
The Baptist Press News has run a detailed article on the story—which makes sense, because the AFA was only one of several religious organizations backing boycotts of Disney. The Southern Baptist Convention, for example, adopted a "resolution" called "On Moral Stewardship and the Disney Company," which would need consent of the full convention to overturn. The next SBC meeting is this June in Nashville. So will the SBC follow suit with the AFA? Says Richard Land, president of the SBC's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, "I learned a long time ago not to predict what a Southern Baptist Convention meeting in session may or may not do."
Meanwhile, elements of the UK press that love painting American Christian conservatives as combative and narrow-minded have predictably painted the AFA's announcement as a victory for Disney. In an article titled "Out of the lion's den: CS Lewis film saves Disney from Christians," the Guardian notes that "conservative Christians" are "heartened by Disney's decision to adapt The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe." Naturally, they get some facts wrong—such as the assertion that "Lewis's tales are traditionally read as thinly-veiled Christian allegories." That's not how they're read. It's what they are. That's like saying The Communist Manifesto is traditionally read as a thinly-veiled political tract.
But let's also be clear on this fact: Disney is not responsible for bringing Narnia to the screen. Walden Media is; Disney merely signed on as a producing and distribution partner. Walden Media commissioned the script, and hired the director. Walden Media initiated the project, and the film's executive producer is Douglas Gresham—who just happens to be C.S. Lewis' devoted stepson, and a passionate Christian. And Disney is doing nothing outrageously new in hiring publicists to promote the film to Chrisitan audiences.
What Disney is doing is simply making good business decisions.
Business decisions, not religious or moral decisions. Do we get that? And that's what businesses in America, by and large (particularly publicly-held companies) are expected to make. They are, after all, in business: to make money. If Disney didn't think they'd make money backing the Narnia films, they wouldn't be doing it.
From where Greg Wright (that's me) sits, the continuing story in the AFA's announcement is the shallowness and convenience of much Christian activism. In the same way that "Christian" media outlets quickly scuttled their proud refusal to air ads for "R" rated movies when one they actually liked finally came along (last year's The Passion of the Christ), the AFA is now dropping its boycott in part because Wildmon knows "there are a lot of evangelicals who are going to want to go and see" the Narnia film (as quoted in Reuters): evangelicals whose support for the AFA might crumble if the AFA kept telling them to boycott Narnia due merely to its association with Disney. Yet the AFA knows that "troublesome stains on the Mouse House," such as the Magic Kingdom's annual Gay Day, aren't going away anytime soon.
Personally, I believe the Disney boycotts to be wildly misguided; and to be fair, Wildmon has said that "the boycott of Disney is now a matter of personal conviction, rather than a matter of AFA ministry emphasis... We encourage people to continue boycotting if they believe that to be the right thing to do."
Boycotts should always be a matter of personal conviction, pure and simple. All matters of principle should be highly personal. And if, on principle, you believed that "R" rated movies should be avoided (which I obviously don't), then you should have avoided Gibson's Passion, too. If you didn't, you compromised your principles.
Likewise, if you believed Disney was worth boycotting nine years ago, you should make your boycott really count and vow right now not to see The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. Why? First, because Disney has not substantially changed its tune. Disney doesn't really care about Christians, or the Christian themes of Narnia. And it shouldn't, any more than it really cares about gay themes. What Disney does care about is ticket sales. That's merely good business sense—which I also consider generally misguided, by the way.
Second, and more importantly, your boycott now has real meaning because sticking with it will actually cost you something. What good is boycotting something you don't want in the first place?
May 31 Update: Apparently, the AFA has decided what's more important than boycotting Disney: boycotting Ford. Check it out. I just wonder what the AFA would do if Ford were to market a vehicle named "Aslan"?
June 6 Update: Aw, darn it! The AFA has already postponed the Ford boycott. I really wanted to see them force Ford to name a car after Aslan...
posted by Greg Wright at 25.5.05
4 Comments:
read our site then sign the pledge!
www.BoycottAfa.com
It's too bad the AFA boycott site is a "project of satirical journalism." I certainly think the AFA's latest move makes it ripe for a real boycott... Not that I think such a boycott would do any good. Although it might. I don't know. It sure does seem, at times, that church leaders are more sensitive to issues of the pocketbook than they should be.
Thanks for the link!
ok its a real boycott, sign the darn pledge!
Heh heh.
You know, what's really funny is that, not two days after I oriinally ran the column on the end of the Disney boycott, the AFA sent me a personal email asking me to pledge on the Ford boycott! Apparently, they just weren't paying attention.
Now, I think my view on the whole thing is pretty clear -- so I shall let my "no be no, and my yes be yes" and you shall simply have to do without a formal pledge.
Post a Comment
<< Home