 RED does not mean "stop." GREEN does not mean "go." Click on the CAPCon Alert image for explanation |
A ministry of the ChildCare Action Project: Christian Analysis of American Culture (CAP Ministry) A 501(c)(3) Nonprofit Christian Ministry. www.capalert.com/ Entertainment Media Analysis Report A service to His little ones through you in His name by His Word MAR2010.009  (2009), PG-13 [Very Lite R-13*] (-hr --min) The #1 Christian entertainment media analysis service on the Internet. We give you OBJECTIVE tools NO ONE ELSE CAN to help YOU make an informed decision for yourself whether a film is fit for your family. Over 1200 analyses for parents, grandparents, pastors, youth leaders and more. |
  (a PayPal account is NOT required) OR (preferred) by Check or Money Order. The CAP is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit Christian ministry. Donations to us are TAX-DEDUCTIBLE |
on what Hollywood feeds your kids. SUBSCRIBE (or unsubscribe) to our FREE text-only email version of these reports and our COMING SOON notices. |
  Christian Long Distance |
(While the Scriptural references are certainly not subjective, my commentary may be and sometimes is somewhat subjective.)
 Cast/Crew Details Courtesy Internet Movie Database Production (US): Darko Entertainment, Media Rights Capital (financial support) Radar Pictures • Distribution (US): Warner Home Video • Director(s): Richard Kelly • Producer(s): Sue Baden-Powell, Terry Dougas, Ted Field, Ted Hamm. Richard Kelly, Paris Kasidokostas Latsis, Dan Lin. Kelly McKittrick, Sean McKittrick • Written by: Richard Kelly (screenplay), Richard Matheson (short story Button, Button) • Cinematography/Camera: Steven Poster • Music: Win Butler, Régine Chassagne, Owen Pallett • Film Editing: Sam Bauer • Casting: Kerry Bardenl, Billy Hopkins, Venus Kanani, Suzanne Smith. Mary Vernieu • Production Design: Alec Hammond • Art Direction: Priscilla Elliott • Viewed on Warner Home Video DVD  In keeping with their family-friendly posture, the DVD for this analysis was provided by the courtesy of Blockbuster. I have not seen that many performances by Cameron Diaz, mostly of the Charlie's Angels™ caliber and similar where she played parts such as air-headed bimbos. The Box is the first truly dramatic role I've seen Cameron play. And she was good! Diaz was a perfect casting for the part of Norma. James Marsden (Enchanted, X-Men and others) as Arthur was a little cardboard and not in one of his best roles. Almost anyone could have done as well with the part of Arthur. Frank Langella as Mr. Steward was nearly as good at his part as Cameron was at hers. If you are looking for a simple ho-hum, pass-the-time flick The Box is not for you. The Box has a somewhat intricate weave of subplots into a relatively seamless fabric of suspense and intrigue. If you are not paying attention, key points and connectivity can escape you and the entertainment experience would not be as rich. Aside from the properties we reveal for you in the Findings/Scoring section. this sci-fi whodunnit might be a good Saturday night flick. But let me suggest you watch it first, mom/dad, before deciding whether to let the little ones watch. And the detailed accounting of the content in the Findings/Scoring section should help you make an informed moral decision whether The Box is fit for the whole family. While watching The Box (PG-13) I fully expected it to earn a PG-equivalent final score. Maybe a "hard" PG but a PG nonetheless. But when all the numbers were crunched it earned a final score of 53 which places it at the top of the range of scores earned by R-rated films (54 and below out of 100) in the comparative baseline database, making it a very lite R-13. The CAP analysis model being better than I at content assessment is good evidence of the objectivity of CAP analysis model. Further, The Box is a good example of our CAP Rule of 1000 The CAP Rule of 1000 addresses a relatively new cinematographic technique of loading a movie with tons of "lesser" issues of assaults on wholesome values to get the same effect or "feel" of a more severe movie which uses fewer but more extreme and bold issues of content. The Box is an example of this loading or weighting of the content with "lesser" instances of assault on wholesome ethics to get the feel of a film with more severe and extreme content without incurring the more severe rating. The "loading" or "weighting" of the content of The Box is most prevalent in the Wanton Violence/Crime (W) and Offense to God (O) investigation areas. If the film had earned a final score of but two more points it would have earned a score equivalent to the PG-13 films in our comparative baseline database, equivalent to a "hard" PG-13 but equivalent to a PG-13 nonetheless. During a snowy December 16, 1976 Christmastime at 7321 Park Road, Antrim, VA, Arthur (James Marsden) and Norma Lewis (Cameron Diaz) suffer a life-changing encounter with a strange and disfigured man named Arlington James Steward (Frank Langella): "Steward with a 'd'." Steward left a cardboard box on the Lewis' doorstep and rang the doorbell at 5:44 AM. As Norma peered through the peep hole in the front door to see who it was that interrupted her sleep, a car in front of their house drove off. The box had no labels or other information about its content. At the breakfast table with their son, Walter (Sam Oz Stone) Arthur opened the cardboard box. Inside the cardboard box was another box, a well crafted wooden box with slightly sloped sides and a large red button atop it enclosed in a locked glass dome. Also in the cardboard box was a note stating "Mr. Steward will call upon you at 5:00 p.m." Nothing was explained about the box with the big red button under the locked glass dome. Next comes a day of routine and a few cinematic devices to build characters and begin a plot. A couple of those devices were ominous and eerie. Arthur is a scientist for NASA and Norma is a teacher at Libby Hill academy. As Norma teaches Sartre and "life in Hell" Charles, one of the rude teenage boys in her class, asked about what happened to Norma's foot: that he had noticed her limping. With a face full of perverted hunger of some type Charles asked Norma if the class without concurrence of the class could see her foot. As if she had no control of what she did next Norma showed the class her foot with missing toes lost in an X-ray blunder when she was 17. Sure enough, Steward appeared at the Lewis's doorstep at 5:00 PM. Arthur was at a conference. Steward was intimidating in that he was missing about half the left side of his face that, under the influence of the choreography, made him appear threatening. He asked whether Norma had found the box with "the button unit" inside. After letting Steward inside, Steward produced the key to the button unit and explained to Norma that if she or Arthur pressed the button he will give them the $1,000,000 he laid out before her but if one of them pressed the button someone they do not even know somewhere in the world will die. One condition of getting the money is that Norma cannot tell anyone except Arthur about the affair and that there is a 24-hour time limit. If they have not pressed the button by 5:00 PM tomorrow Steward would retrieve the box and make the same offer to someone else. They have until 5:00 PM tomorrow to decide. Steward gave Norma a crisp $100 dollar bill from the $1,000,000 for her cordiality that she can keep even if she says "No." The Lewis' are financially vulnerable since they are strapped. They must decide whether to get rich by killing someone they don't even know or continue in their financial hardship with only a $100 gratuity. Will Arthur or Norma press the button? Will no one press the button? If one of them does, who dies because of their greed? I've spoiled enough of the story and plot and will say no more. Whether the Lewis' press the button is for you to discover should you decide to watch this movie after discovering the content we reveal for you so you might be in a better position to make an informed moral decision whether the movie is fit for your families or yourselves. The story and plot sound a little like a parody of the Saw chain of movies. But you can rest assured that while The Box seems to mimic Saw, it does not even approach the graphic or extreme content of the Saw films, at least of the first Saw, the only Saw installment I've seen (of which I did not bother to conduct an analysis). At least I think it was the first Saw. There were III weren't there? IV? V? VI? … Following are brief discussions of the content of The Box for they who do not like detailed lists as provided in the Findings/Scoring section, the heart of the CAP analysis model. For a full and detailed accounting of the content found, be sure to read the Findings/Scoring section. The full text of each verse referenced below is provided after the individual investigation area discussions. Wanton Violence/Crime (W) - Zero out of 100 For the most part the content found by this investigation area involves, dead bodies, injury gore, kidnapping, the use of firearms to control and forced choosing between a wife's life or her son's sight and hearing. We are faced with difficult decisions every day but never should we have to choose between a mother's life or her son's sight and hearing. Such is a very emotionally violent decision. And portrayal of having to make such a decision by larger than life characters that have your undivided attention is one more step into desensitization for most. In addition to the deeply basal issue of forced decision-making, the film presents many more items of violence and/or crime: dead bodies with lite gore; still photos of the same; injury gore (frequent); trespassing; theft of crime scene evidence; kidnapping with firearms and other acts with firearms to control, including of a child; home invasion/stalking; more. See the listing in the Findings/Scoring section for a full accounting of the violence/crime content. The American Medical Association and three other professional health agencies jointly warn of such an influence which probably unknowingly and unintentionally echoes God in His many warnings that violence is "contagious." But God said so a l-o-n-g time before them. Proverb 16:29 is just one. God speaks darkly of violence 56 times in the Old and New Testament of the KJV. Impudence/Hate (I) - 88 out of 100 With only one use of profanity, this film is most atypical of PG-13s. But even once is too many in accordance with God's wishes for us. [Prov. 22:11] Teen arrogance at parents [Exod. 20:12, Eph. 6:1 - 3] and the perverted rudeness of one of Norma's students dragged down the Impudence/Hate investigation area score more. Sexual Immorality (S) - 81 out of 100 The sexually immoral behaviors and imagery in this film were also quite atypical of a PG-13. The suggestion of the teen student's sexual interest in Norma's feet started a rather short list of behavioral or imagery improprieties. Others included adults in underwear and a man and a woman in bed together though dressed in sleep wear repeatedly. If we as prudent and responsible adults should not display a behavior or state of [un]dress in public such as a court room or classroom we should not display it on screen for 200,000,000 viewers. "Acting" does not excuse iniquities. [Phil. 4:8] Drugs/Alcohol (D) - 57 out of 100 While the content of this film is quite atypical of the content of most PG-13 films in profanity and sexual immorality, it provides strong examples of drinking alcoholic beverages plus a couple examples of smoking tobacco. It is no longer arguable whether such onscreen demonstrations embolden the young to drink and smoke. The American College of Physicians (ACP) found in a 2002 study of 4544 middle school students, 90% of whom were under 14 years old (the "PG-13" age stratum), that of the ones who had no movie viewing restrictions, 46% of them tried alcohol without their parents' knowledge. Only four percent of they who had complete viewing restrictions had tried alcohol without their parents' knowledge. Though it is not a sin to drink, it is a sin to get drunk [Eph. 5:18] or to influence to get drunk or to drink in defiance such as underage drinking. Yes, Jesus drank wine and even made wine from water, but never did He get drunk. Offense to God (O) - Zero out of 100 Eight times someone uses God's name in vain but all are without the four letter expletive. Remember that God makes no distinction between using a four-letter expletive with his name or not. Only man places more offensive weight on the use of His name with the four letter expletive. Any use of His name other than in respect, reverence or responsible discussion and in praise and prayer. That includes the use of Jesus' name or title and the popular three-syllable sentence with His name trailing it. [Deut. 5:11] In addition to the 8 uses of God's name in vain, this investigation area found a number of behaviors and/or comments in violation of His Word: ill-gotten gain [Hab. 2:9]; Christmas without Christ; some supernatural (unholy) manifestations such as mystic or psychic power to make things happen; an unholy resurrection and "magic" healing; mockery of the path to Salvation and other matters of abuse of Scripture. Murder/Suicide (M) - 91 out of 100 There were no suicides throughout the 108 minutes of actual movie time but there was one admission of murdering a wife plus a gunfire murder of another wife. Maybe under the "justification" of the story the murder was noble since it was to save the son from being blind and deaf the rest of his life, but the CAP analysis model does not care what the trumped up justification for an onscreen murder might be. If there is a murder portrayed in a film, we report it. You decide on any justification for it. See the text of the BEFORE You Read On... link for more information on this matter. SCRIPTURAL APPLICATION(S) If needed to focus or fortify, applicable text is underlined or bracketed [ ] or bold. If you wish to have full context available, the Blue Letter Bible is a convenient source. If you use the Blue Letter Bible, a new window will open. Close it to return here or use "Window" in your browser's menu bar to alternate between the CAP page and the Blue Letter Bible page. CHAPTER/VERSE ***Selected Scriptures of Armour against the influence of the entertainment industry*** As always, it is best to refer to the Findings/Scoring section -- the heart of the CAP analysis model -- for the most complete assessment possible of this movie. |
 |
 Wanton Violence/Crime (W) - Zero out of 100 Impudence/Hate (I) - 88 out of 100 Sexual Immorality (S) - 81 out of 100 Drugs/Alcohol (D) - 57 out of 100 Offense to God (O) - Zero out of 100 Murder/Suicide (M) - 91 out of 100 |
| There are some in the entertainment industry who maintain that 1) violent programming is harmless because no studies exist that prove a connection between violent entertainment and aggressive behavior in children, and 2) young people know that television, movies, and video games are simply fantasy. Unfortunately, they are wrong on both accounts." And "Viewing violence may lead to real life violence." I applaud these associations for fortifying 1 Cor. 15:33. Read the rest of the story. From our years of study, I contend that other aberrant behaviors, attitudes, and expressions can be inserted in place of "violence" in that statement. Our Director - Child Psychology Support, a licensed psychologist and certified school psychologist concurs. For example, "Viewing arrogance against fair authority may lead to your kids defying you in real life." Or "Viewing sex may lead to sex in real life." Likewise and especially with impudence, hate and foul language. I further contend that any positive behavior can be inserted in place of "violence" with the same chance or likelihood of being a behavior template for the observer; of being incorporated into the behavior mechanics and/or coping skills of the observer. In choosing your entertainment, please consider carefully the "rest of the story" and our findings. |
|
Thank you for visiting us and may God bless you. Prayerfully, we will provide you with some of the most revealing commentary and investigative reporting you have ever read. In the name of Jesus: Lord, Master, Teacher, Savior, God. Tom Carder President ChildCare Action Project (CAP): Christian Analysis of American Culture 100% dependent on your tax-deductible financial support |  |
Christian Long Distance |
|
We exist only by your tax-deductible donations. PLEASE  Features PayPal! You do NOT need an account to donate. |
