Friends had recommended Spencer’s Mountain as a “religious” picture we would enjoy. This Warner Brothers production is not an “advanced” or “adult” film but simply an ordinary Hollywood portrayal of American life, set in the beautiful country around Grand Teton in western Wyoming. The story concerned the Spencer family, poor in earthly things but rich in affection and ambition. The mother was a devout, Bible-believing member of the Church of God—a fundamentalist. With one exception, a time when she lied rather weakly, she was presented as a conscientious and good person. The father was a poker-playing, profane, drinking man who was devoted to his family and served his community well but who openly ridiculed his wife’s religion.
The plot dealt with two crises that hit the family. The first was an accident in which Spencer cut down a large tree that fell upon and killed his father. In the funeral service that followed, the simple faith of the Church of God people was shown with a deeply moving dignity and warmth that revealed something of the real magnificence of Protestantism. But if the picture showed what faith can do for people, it also showed what people can do for themselves. For in the second crisis, the family worked to get the oldest son into college, and the non-Christian father’s determination brought the family through to victory.
One might suppose that we came away that night grateful for the “climb” up “Spencer’s Mountain.” After all we had seen some things that had enriched our own faith and life. But we did not come away grateful. We came away incensed and soiled. What might easily have been a shining hour showing family life at its best, showing human beings in the rich texture of their relationships to God and to one another, was turned into what might be described as a kind of “spiritual nightmare.” We watched sex stupidly cheapened to the point of repulsiveness. We saw modesty and dignity shamelessly pushed aside.
This criticism is strong, but it is not too strong. Consider this business of choosing a “good” picture. Many church people try to follow the PTA reviews or in some other way to distinguish between desirable and undesirable films. Thus a parent may forbid a high school boy to see La Dolce Vita and encourage him to see Ben Hur. But although this type of choice is still possible it is becoming increasingly difficult, for even in the better films there is much questionable material.
How has this come about? For one thing, to accept all that is now being shown on the screen is regarded by many as a mark of sophistication. It is considered provincial to have puritanical standards or to register embarrassment. Perhaps it is true that a certain breadth of outlook is good for us. But when people reach the point where nothing seems to shock them, sophistication is un-Christian. The simple truth is that much of what now passes for sophisticated fare on the screen is little more than vulgarity. We have lost the courage to call it by its right name.
Another attempted justification for inserting degrading material into the average picture is that films must show life as it is. But realism does not mean following people into their bedrooms when they undress or staying with them while they take a bath.
Three Indictments
How was this film with an acceptable plot, a competent cast, and beautiful scenery spoiled? Spencer’s Mountain comes under indictment on three counts.
First, the audience was spared little in the way sex was handled. In one way or another, the film concerned itself with the bathroom habits of children, the developing physique of young girls, the sexual adventures of teen-agers, the breeding of cattle (a snickering reference), and the marital bed.
One scene calls for special comment. The Spencer boy had a young girl friend, and few details of their love-making were left to the imagination of the audience. The camera came in close for their kisses, the movement of their hands, and the profile of their figures. While such scenes seemed in bad taste, one could at least understand them as a part of the Hollywood bait. But there was an episode where even this was impossible. The two teen-agers secured a large, “unexpurgated” dictionary in order that they might look up “dirty words,” as the young girl, who throughout the picture seemed obsessed with sex, put it. The audience then watched the wondering and wandering eyes of the boy as the girl led him on.
Sex is a central fact of life hallowed by God in the Scriptures, and the screen can hardly avoid it. But the cheap and suggestive way it intruded into Spencer’s Mountain constitutes a challenge the Church can no longer ignore. Young people who see that kind of film may be morally hurt by it.
Consider next the profanity in the picture. Years ago profanity was never permitted on the screen. Today the standard is radically different, with careless and frequent profanity the accepted practice. Those who defend this say that there are people who swear and that, if they are to be shown honestly, they must be shown as they are. That is only partially true. People should be shown as they are, but respect for the audience should limit that portrayal to what is in good taste.
A third indictment of this film concerns the image it gave of the Protestant pastor. I make no prejudiced demands on Hollywood with respect to the Church and its ministers. Let them be shown as they are, and let the chips fall where they will. But the characterization should certainly be fair. Spencer’s Mountain was dishonest in its portrayal of the Church of God preacher. This young man was introduced in a scene in which he met Spencer while trout fishing. Spencer offered him a drink of whiskey that the young pastor accepted, after being told that it was a “mosquito repellent.” He drank and eventually fell into the river. I know ministers who drink on occasion, but I doubt whether there is a preacher in the country who would drink whiskey without knowing what he was doing. The minister was made to appear stupid.
We hear much talk these days about the “post-Protestant” and even the “post-Christian” era in which we live. On the many factors involved in our spiritual decline, I leave the verdict in other hands; but I am sure of at least one contributing cause. Increasingly the movies are spreading their sludge across the land. Our young people know more and more about the pleasure-obsessed, cocktail-drinking, swearing, gambling, and sexually undisciplined way of life. The scandal of the frequently divorced stars of former years has now given way to open promiscuity among leading actors.
One result of this week-by-week indoctrination is that the American people are beginning to accept Hollywood’s standards as the norm for conduct. A situation has developed that we in Church leadership have been slow to realize and may now be even slower to admit. We face a real conflict, with Hollywood on one side and the Church on the other.
What Might Be Done
As I see it, three developments are possible in this conflict. First, Hollywood could change its ways. This it ought to do out of compassion for the human beings who are being tempted and perhaps destroyed by its films. The average director must know what happens to a girl who finds herself expecting a baby out of wedlock. He must know the tragedy of a broken home. Does he, then, knowingly and willingly entice youth into moral quicksands? Would he be willing to have his own teen-age daughter filmed as the blond girl in Spencer’s Mountain? How would he feel if he found his high school son and a girl studying the language of prostitution and perversion on a date? Hollywood ought to face the fact that it is helping to undermine the moral character of a great nation. Should the industry respond to the Church’s conscience on that question, the Church would have won a significant victory.
Secondly, things could remain as they are. The film industry might decide to continue its present practices regardless of church criticism. There is abundant evidence that this is exactly what it intends to do. And the Church, confronted by this policy, might accommodate itself to the new environment without realizing it has made a serious compromise with the world. There is evidence also that this is happening. There was a time, I believe, when the Church would not have accepted the Taylor-Burton affair. Today there is little real protest. Should the Church accommodate itself to this new environment in which Hollywood sets the standard, then Hollywood would have won a significant victory and the Church would face further deterioration.
The third possibility is that the Church might once again train its people to be in the world but not of it. For those who have been schooled in the idea that the Church ought to be thoroughly involved in the problems of society, the very mention of a religion that calls for withdrawal from the world suggests something distasteful and futile. What good does it do to live in an ivory tower of faith, they ask, if the world is going to pieces? Is not withdrawal basically selfish?
There is no question whether Christianity ought to be relevant to our modern world. No church will have influence if it retreats while the great social and ethical questions of our day are being fought out. Nevertheless, we must be concerned that spirituality and moral values are being sabotaged in the modern motion picture. If Hollywood continues to offer such fare, we shall have to withdraw in order to save our own sense of values. That is neither cowardly nor unrealistic. It is merely common sense. In the Christian life, it is not only what is inside us that establishes our values; our environment also has its effect. The most devout Christian cannot withstand indefinitely the suggestive, cynical, and vulgar material now being offered on the screen.
Charles R. Bell, Jr., is the pastor of the First Baptist Church of Pasadena, California. He received the Ph.D. degree from Brown University, the Th.M. from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and the D.D. from Kalamazoo College. Dr. Bell has served on the General Council of the American Baptist Convention.
