Click on CAPCon Alert
image for explanation
A service to our youth through you,
their parents and grandparents, in His name by His Word
MAR22033
Panic Room (2002), R
Analysis Date: April 3, 2002
CAP Score: 42
MinMax: -91
CAP Influence Density: 3.56
Click on CAPCon Alert image for explanation |
A service to our youth through you, their parents and grandparents, in His name by His Word MAR22033 Panic Room (2002), R Analysis Date: April 3, 2002 CAP Score: 42 MinMax: -91 CAP Influence Density: 3.56 |
|
PANIC ROOM (R) -- ...why must it be told at all?. Distributed by: Columbia Pictures Director(s): David Fincher Producer(s): Ceán Chaffin, John S. Dorsey, Judy Hofflund, David Koepp, Gavin Polone Written by/Screenplay: David Koepp Cinematography/Camera: Conrad W. Hall, Darius Khondji Music: Howard Shore Editing: Jim Haygood, Angus Wall Panic Room will probably get some of the highest kudos of 2002. And in many ways it earned them. Some of the finest performances were provided under some of the finest choreography and camera work available. But some of the worst programming. Granted, a story like this could not be told without some evil and vulgarity, but why must it be told at all? Is it an example of thinking on good things? [Phil. 4:8] Why is it that entertainment must be vile and invasive? Why must a stirring feature plant aberrant behavioral templates not to mention the sins of those demonstrating sinful behavior? After a few minutes of clever but dry and sarcastic humor between showing realtors, recently divorced Meg Altman (Jodie Foster) and her diabetic daughter, Sarah (Kristen Stewart) move into a swank upper west side Manhattan home. Something they can certainly afford since her ex, Stephan (Patrick Bauchau) is a multimillionaire in pharmaceuticals. And something else indeed was the home. Hardwood floors through out. Six working fireplaces. And a panic room. The panic room was a secure room with poured concrete walls, three inch steel plates, an independent air system as well as an independent phone system. And a closed circuit TV camera for just about every corner in the house. And the door was heavier than a bank vault door.Sarah said in her quite arrogant manner, "My room. Definitely my room!" It seems the previous owner was into personal security. And for a good reason. Remember I said the door to the panic room was heavier than a bank vault door? Well, there is good reason for it to be so invulnerable. There is $22 million in that panic room, which was the reason three bad guys broke into the home. Gentle but criminal Burnham (Forest Whitaker) worked for the company that built that very panic room, which appeared to be quite the rage in the upper west side of Manhattan. Burnham knew every nook and cranny of the room since he built it. And he knew there was no way to get through the walls, floor or ceiling. The only way into that room was the door. The door could be opened only if whoever was in the room opened it. And Meg was not about to do that. Burnham, with his two cohorts, Junior (Jared Leto), and Raoul (Dwight Yoakam) thought the house was still empty and would not be inhabited for another week. The brilliance of the mentality of Junior confused the business week with the calendar week. Lo and behold, the turgid trio broke into an occupied house. Meg and Sarah quickly took advantage of the panic room. Sarah got her wish for the next few hours. Here is where the edge-of-your-seat suspense begins. The quarrelsome bandits try "every trick in the book" to get into that room. After failing every attempt, cat-n-mouse turns in the plot end up with Meg outside the room and Burnham and Raoul in the room with $22 million ... and Sarah. The movie keeps up the suspense for about 80 minutes. And it keeps up the foul language and violence for the same period. Sixty-eight uses of the most foul of the foul words, four of them by 12 or 13 year old Sarah -- with "mom's" approval no less [Ps. 12:8, Eph. 5:4, Col. 3:8, Luke 17:2]. Such a sinematic camaraderie is sure to become a behavioral template for many early teens, whether intentional or not: "She gets to say those words. Why can't I, mom?" Whether vocal, I'll bet the thought is there for many preteens and early teens who see this movie, whether with permission of not [1 Cor. 15:33]. Thirty-one uses of the rest of the three/four letter word vocabulary [Prov. 17:20]. God's name in vain both with and without the four letter expletive [Deut. 5:11]. And Jodie Foster is not embarrassed by how much cleavage she shows [Isa. 2:17]. There is, of course, much more ignominy to this R-rated show, but I am going to leave that to the main purpose of these CAP Entertainment Media Analysis reports -- the listing in the Findings/Scoring section, the heart of the CAP analysis model. SCRIPTURAL APPLICATION(S) If needed to focus or fortify, applicable text is underlined or bracketed [ ]. 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. *******Food for Thought******* 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): Impudence/Hate (I)(1): Sex/Homosexuality (S): Drugs/Alcohol (D): Offense to God (O)(2): Murder/Suicide (M)(3): |
 |
 |
 Christian Media News |
 Biblical based Management Consulting |
 A Singles Christian Network |
 |
 |
 |
| NOTE: The CAP Analysis Model makes no scoring allowances for trumped-up "messages" to excuse or for manufacturing of justification for aberrant behavior or imagery, or for camouflaging such ignominy with "redeeming" programming. Disguising sinful behavior in a theme plot does not excuse the sinful behavior of either the one who is drawing pleasure or example from the sinful display or the practitioners demonstrating the sinful behavior. This is NOT a movie review service. It is a movie analysis service to parents and grandparents to tell them the truth about movies using the Truth. |
| "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 nearly seven 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. |
