C Me Dance: Or, Mind-Control Powers for God

Last night I ran across a movie called "C Me Dance". It's an inspiring little film about a dying teenage ballerina girl who manages to inspire the people around her to --

No, wait, scratch that. It's a film about a soul-sucking, brain-stealing harpy who can control people's minds and force them to believe in Jesus Christ with a touch of her hand, her unfortunate-haircut-sporting single father, her annoying friends, and the story's gravel-voiced, leather trench-coat-sporting Satan, who looks sort of like Jamie Sheridan if you dipped his face in wax and gave him two of Marilyn Manson's contact lenses.

Let's get on to a compilation of the film's worst parts, shall we?



SHURRRREEEEEEEEE

Now, note that throughout the film, SHURREEE has been diagnosed with advanced leukemia. Yet she looks perfectly healthy and continues to dance, move around, and eat normal food without significant, lifestyle-altering problems. Maybe it's because of the magic power she has to zap people full of instant Christian belief and right-wing Christian morality and behavior, without the inconvenience of ever opening a Bible, explaining the story of Jesus, or even getting to know the person she's (forcibly) converting as an actual person.



There's some more of the worst of this film, including SHURRREEE singing (badly), acting (badly), having a hissy fit (badly), touching people inappropriately (badly), and random really bad CGI on the plastic-faced Devil guy.

Of course, MovieGuide goes easy on this putrid pile of Ed Woods-level crap.

Shockingly enough, "C Me Dance" is FAR from the worst thing that Uplifting Entertainment has squeezed out. Bigger turds include "Stuck In The Past", a horrifying film that features more brutal stereotypes of poor white Southerners than Deliverance and the entire Wrong Turn and Texas Chain Saw Massacre franchises combined, and "Max and Missy", a soulless poser dog who does... poser dog stuff.

"the only christian sitcom in the world"

... What about Little Mosque on the Prarie?

Also, regarding the newspaper scene: I love how these people instantly believe anything written in the paper. Are conservatives actually like that? If somebody writes "rapes down 89%", would they actually think that people stopped raping other people? Fo realz?

"a soulless poser dog who does... poser dog stuff"

At first I thought you meant poser as in hipster. Now I realise you meant poser as in the program, Poser. :<
Someone tell these people that you're supposed to record the dialogue before you animate the film.

They connect the existance of pornography with rape. They also say porn tortures people. And they also talk like there are, like, chains of porn-stores like there are chains of bookstores. Geez.

This is AWFUL.

Wow, that's mind-bendingly bad. All the Christians I've talked to extensively - Catholic and Protestant, left-leaning and fundie - have said that though a conversion or reversion (getting "saved") may come in a flash, the actual journey to being a good Christian is long and difficult. It's part of the theology. I think Shuree Magic Touch is almost an insult to that, because becoming a Christian unconsciously and compulsively would defeat the point.

Also, she's a Sue. Odd name, raven hair, dancing talent, a dead mother, a life-threatening disease that doesn't actually matter, fame, and the power to banish things her script author hates (in this case, teh pr0nz) with a literal wave of the hand. First rule of story conception, people: no Sues. Second rule? No shopping montages.

Pretty common among fundies, really. Jack Chick operates on the same principle: all they need is to hear about Jesus and BAM they instantly go "OMG really? That jesus thing you're talking about is fantastic!" and they're converted.

In the scene where they brainwash the dude into donating a time slot to them: isn't that technically stealing?

I think so, but it doesn't matter because she's the Hero of the Story, which basically means anything she does is the right thing and we're supposed to root for her, no matter what.
And wait--about the second video, I thought Friday was the biggest viewing night of the week?

littledorrit wrote:

Wow, that's mind-bendingly bad. All the Christians I've talked to extensively - Catholic and Protestant, left-leaning and fundie - have said that though a conversion or reversion (getting "saved") may come in a flash, the actual journey to being a good Christian is long and difficult. It's part of the theology. I think Shuree Magic Touch is almost an insult to that, because becoming a Christian unconsciously and compulsively would defeat the point.

This, right here. It's completely contrary. Sure, "blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe" and all that, but the film's taking it in a whole different direction. There's evangelizing, and then there's friggin' psychic mind control. Part of living a good life is working at it, and it's never as easy as preachers make it sound. In fact, Satan is supposed to be the guy offering the easy solutions . . .

Fuuuuuck. SHUREEE is working for the other side, isn't she?

No... Shuree is using mind control and sparkle-sue powers to win over the entire planet to her bland way of non-thinking so they will give up all their possessions to her.

She wants to take both God and Satan's jobs and the movie shows only Satan's resistance. The movie is Shuree propaganda made to make her look like the victim.

God just bides his time and doesn't spaz out like Satan. He waits until Shuree dies and then puts her in a mental hospital in the sky where she can never control anyone else ever again.

The end.

It's the business of preachers and tract writers to make Jesus look like an easy answer - otherwise, who would answer the call? - but when you get a calm person from the Christian world alone for a nice chat, they'll tell you that a lot of Christ's parables and declarations are challenges and should be taken as such.

Of course there are Christians who say, "I'm perfect as long as I say I'm Saved," but they're rarely true believers. The most surprising thing I've learned in my lifelong dealings with declared Christians is how many fundies aren't true believers: they come from fundie homes and parrot everyone around them without thinking; they are dying for an easy way to look down on people; they are secret doubters who feel they could never leave the specific church that has been their lifelong social network; they want money, attention, or a seat in the House of Representatives; they are the ordinary wife of a fundie and they believe their husband should do their thinking for them (surprisingly common); they have an intense personality that indiscriminately seizes on anything you throw at them, be it drugs, romance, or Jesus; they feel immoral somehow and are covering their ass; their concept of God is based on their abusive father; they want to protect their kids from the scary world and they can't imagine doing it any way besides raising them fundie (common in the black community). These accidents can bring people who are not really connected with God, or who are whitebread Christians, into fundamentalism.

Our society's concept of religion is externalized: religion is what you say you are, where you go to church, how you tell others how to live their life, and what you wear. However, I would imagine that God cares about the internal more than anything.

I admire people who are internally dedicated to their faith and who really ponder the implications of what they believe. They're interesting to talk to, and they're often the ones who end up doing good in the world.

Harley Quinn hyenaholic wrote:

They connect the existance of pornography with rape.

Yeah, there is actually a certain level of truth to that, although I'm sure this movie completely missed the complexities and nuances involved.

^This.

There are studies that indicate that men (to my knowledge, there is not yet a study to see if the same holds true of women, but my suspicion is that it would) tend to view women more negatively and objectify them more after watching porn. What porn was used in these experiments wasn't released, and I wish it had been. I don't believe ALL pornography necessarily does this, but there is definitely a huge amount of it that is quite violent and demeaning to the receptive partner (I've seen this in gay porn, as well as straight).

*wheezes from laughter* Christ that was awful! lol What a lovely find. Regarding her name though--I actually have a coworker named Sherie, spelled and pronounced exactly the same. So it's not totally out of the ordinary.

Sakurelf wrote:

Also, regarding the newspaper scene: I love how these people instantly believe anything written in the paper. Are conservatives actually like that? If somebody writes "rapes down 89%", would they actually think that people stopped raping other people? Fo realz?

Only if it's the right newspaper. Fox News is 100% accurate all the time, conversely HuffPost is always wrong. Not only that, but that statistic is virtually impossible, let alone remotely believable. Rape and murder rates down by 89% in two weeks?

Folks, it's time for another edition of Fundie Statistics!

To begin with, crime rates are never measured in intervals as small as two weeks--there's simply not enough of those crimes to make it useful. In the average town in America, murders occur less than once a month, if that. When you're in a large city of course it's higher. But realistically, unless you live in the Congo or something, it just doesn't happen. Or, if you insist on using the two week period, murder rates are usually down by 100% two weeks after any murder, because they just don't happen that often. Yet another sideways glimpse into the conservative ideology of fear--ahh there's rapists an' murderers everywhere!!1 I'm not even touching rape statistics, because, yeah.

Thanks for joining us on this edition of Fundie Statistics! Up next, the United States Debt Ceiling Debacle!

rae wrote:

There are studies that indicate that men (to my knowledge, there is not yet a study to see if the same holds true of women, but my suspicion is that it would) tend to view women more negatively and objectify them more after watching porn. What porn was used in these experiments wasn't released, and I wish it had been. I don't believe ALL pornography necessarily does this, but there is definitely a huge amount of it that is quite violent and demeaning to the receptive partner (I've seen this in gay porn, as well as straight).

In my mind (which may very well hold no water with anyone else's views) but for some reason I've always considered this the difference between porn and erotica. I find that what gets called 'porn' depicts sex in a way that is derogatory to one (usually female) or both/all parties, whereas erotica is not just about the sex act itself and is usually more enjoyable. *shrug*

Owlish wrote:

In my mind (which may very well hold no water with anyone else's views) but for some reason I've always considered this the difference between porn and erotica. I find that what gets called 'porn' depicts sex in a way that is derogatory to one (usually female) or both/all parties, whereas erotica is not just about the sex act itself and is usually more enjoyable. *shrug*

I'd always defined the difference between the two as a certain amount of plot (erotica generally has some) and in the way the language is used (erotica tends to pretty things up a bit). I would agree with the derogatory bit, except that I've read erotica (fairly fluffy sex scenes, quite a bit of plot) that managed to be quite derogatory to all parties involved. I'm not arguing mind, I just like to discuss how people define these things, since there are no hard and fast rules about the porn/erotica categories.

rae wrote:

Owlish wrote:

In my mind (which may very well hold no water with anyone else's views) but for some reason I've always considered this the difference between porn and erotica. I find that what gets called 'porn' depicts sex in a way that is derogatory to one (usually female) or both/all parties, whereas erotica is not just about the sex act itself and is usually more enjoyable. *shrug*

I'd always defined the difference between the two as a certain amount of plot (erotica generally has some) and in the way the language is used (erotica tends to pretty things up a bit). I would agree with the derogatory bit, except that I've read erotica (fairly fluffy sex scenes, quite a bit of plot) that managed to be quite derogatory to all parties involved. I'm not arguing mind, I just like to discuss how people define these things, since there are no hard and fast rules about the porn/erotica categories.

I suppose the intent behind both that makes the difference: if it's just a raunchy sex scene to get the guys off by playing some mysoginistic scenario, or if it's about two (or more) people enjoying themselves with one another. Maybe the reason most porn has that destructive effect is because most of it falls in the first category.

Owlish wrote:

*wheezes from laughter* Christ that was awful! lol What a lovely find. Regarding her name though--I actually have a coworker named Sherie, spelled and pronounced exactly the same. So it's not totally out of the ordinary.

Do you live in Utah? (or is she from Utah? Ask.)

Because after watching Sister Wives, and seeing their names, I now know that Utah Names is a confirmed "thing."

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

rae wrote:

Owlish wrote:

In my mind (which may very well hold no water with anyone else's views) but for some reason I've always considered this the difference between porn and erotica. I find that what gets called 'porn' depicts sex in a way that is derogatory to one (usually female) or both/all parties, whereas erotica is not just about the sex act itself and is usually more enjoyable. *shrug*

I'd always defined the difference between the two as a certain amount of plot (erotica generally has some) and in the way the language is used (erotica tends to pretty things up a bit). I would agree with the derogatory bit, except that I've read erotica (fairly fluffy sex scenes, quite a bit of plot) that managed to be quite derogatory to all parties involved. I'm not arguing mind, I just like to discuss how people define these things, since there are no hard and fast rules about the porn/erotica categories.

Interesting...what about material that isn't a story, though? I'm thinking of art, paintings or photographs, etc. How would you define porn or erotica when words aren't used? Also, I don't know that I would say that erotica "pretties things up." For example, I've read at least one story that deals with a character having sex for the first time after being raped, but it was more about the emotional journey than just the sex; while it was fairly dark and emotionally painful, I would still call that erotica. Conversely, I've also read quite long, flowery stories that were basically about the characters (or the author) getting off, and I would still call that porn even though it was artistically done.

Then again, maybe I'm just picking and choosing what material I'd like to put in each category with no objective basis. There are definitely no hard and fast rules, that's for sure--and there probably never will be, because everyone views these things through the lens of their own experiences.

Sakurelf wrote:

Owlish wrote:

*wheezes from laughter* Christ that was awful! lol What a lovely find. Regarding her name though--I actually have a coworker named Sherie, spelled and pronounced exactly the same. So it's not totally out of the ordinary.

Do you live in Utah? (or is she from Utah? Ask.)

Because after watching Sister Wives, and seeing their names, I now know that Utah Names is a confirmed "thing."

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

No, I most certainly do not live in Utah! lol I will ask her where she's from though.

I sort of want to watch this in hopes it'll help me with a trollfic I've been putting off.

Owlish wrote:

Interesting...what about material that isn't a story, though? I'm thinking of art, paintings or photographs, etc. How would you define porn or erotica when words aren't used? Also, I don't know that I would say that erotica "pretties things up." For example, I've read at least one story that deals with a character having sex for the first time after being raped, but it was more about the emotional journey than just the sex; while it was fairly dark and emotionally painful, I would still call that erotica. Conversely, I've also read quite long, flowery stories that were basically about the characters (or the author) getting off, and I would still call that porn even though it was artistically done.

You could always go with Justice Stewart said in Jacobellis v. Ohio in 1964:

Quote :

"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced . . . [b]ut I know it when I see it . . . "

It can be hard to define it, even if you're going by my old standard of "is it meant to get someone off?" I know a few people that collect vintage porn from the twenties, but it can be hard to call that porn because it looks so artful to my eyes.

Soylent Green wrote:

Owlish wrote:

Interesting...what about material that isn't a story, though? I'm thinking of art, paintings or photographs, etc. How would you define porn or erotica when words aren't used? Also, I don't know that I would say that erotica "pretties things up." For example, I've read at least one story that deals with a character having sex for the first time after being raped, but it was more about the emotional journey than just the sex; while it was fairly dark and emotionally painful, I would still call that erotica. Conversely, I've also read quite long, flowery stories that were basically about the characters (or the author) getting off, and I would still call that porn even though it was artistically done.

You could always go with Justice Stewart said in Jacobellis v. Ohio in 1964:

Quote :

"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced . . . [b]ut I know it when I see it . . . "

It can be hard to define it, even if you're going by my old standard of "is it meant to get someone off?" I know a few people that collect vintage porn from the twenties, but it can be hard to call that porn because it looks so artful to my eyes.

Rule 34. If it exists, someone will get off on it.