Shrekked
Why are readers responding passionately about a simple film review?
John Wilson | posted 7/01/2001 12:00AM
Of all the pieces we've published this year, none has provoked as passionate a response as Eric Metaxas's review of Shrek. No sooner was it posted on our Web site than the comments began to come in, continuing now that it is out in the July/August issue. CT's online Film Forum has been a particularly lively site, with responses to Metaxas from a host of readers, including film reviewer Peter Chattaway, who has frequently appeared in the pages of Books & Culture.
Most of the comments have been negative, though that verdict is by no means unanimous. Leaving aside the specifics of agreement or disagreement, what's striking to me is not only the sheer volume of response—evidently an astonishing number of our readers saw Shrek almost as soon as it was released—but also the degree of engagement. Movies, for better or worse, are the lingua franca of our culture, or as close to a common language as we come.
Below are two letters selected from the many we have received. The first is from the Idaho-based founder of the classical Christian school movement, the second from a reader in Georgia.
* * *
I read Eric Metaxas's review of Shrek with interest and appreciation. His argument that we should resist all such forms of what I have called metaphor-morphing was cogent and well-taken. But at the same time, his bio noted (and apparently without embarrassment) that he works for the very worst offenders in the world of metaphor-morphing, which is to say, the makers of VeggieTales. And then, in the same issue, another article undertakes to praise VeggieTales, despite a minor quibble here and there.
Let me see if I have your argument down. We should take great care not to twist or distort our ancient images of ogres, princesses, and the like, so as not to mess with our kids' heads. Scriptural metaphor and image, however, is fair game, so long as we are trying to impart "biblical values." Notice the implicit assumption that a scriptural, literate, aesthetic sense is not a biblical value to be imparted to children. King David as a broccoli, or whatever it is they have him as, changes nothing essential about the story—if you are an evangelical.
This issue shows, despite your name, that cultural soul and modern evangelicalism still go together like whiskey and ice cream.
Douglas Wilson
Christ Church, Moscow
How do I hate this review? Let me count the ways. Shrek did not "dwell in the swamp happily alone," he struggled with bitterness and depression because of the xenophobic persecution forced on him by the "normal" world. Shrek is not "grotesque"; he's just a big, strong, homely guy with a sense of humor and loyalty—in other words, a catch for any woman with the maturity to overlook the "defect" of his failure to somehow endow himself with Chippendale good looks. And thank goodness Eddie Murphy is the donkey; for my money, he is light years funnier than Ms. Goldberg.
Shrek does not "subvert the glorious and mysterious and ennobling idea of fairy tales themselves." Many fairy tales are frightening, violent, and depressing, and often encourage children to long for unrealistic and unwholesome "magical" solutions to their problems. E.M. says Shrek is "tiresome in its unalleviated puncturing." Tiresome to whom? My husband (age 50) laughed his head off, our 16- and 14-year-old sons roared, and our nine-year-old daughter told her little friends "it's really funny." Of course I, the Mom (age 47), loved it also. And evidently so do millions of Americans. (Don't get me wrong, millions of Americans can be blind as bats, as shown by '92 and '96.)
July (Web-only) 2001, Vol. 45
1 of 3
E-mail
Print
Post
Subscribe to Christianity Today magazine today!
