Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Tinsel

Home
Religious Music & Entertainment
In Defense of ‘Two and Half Men’s’ Angus T. Jones

In Defense of ‘Two and Half Men’s’ Angus T. Jones

Last updated on: November 28, 2012 at 11:52 am by Rebecca Cusey

In Defense of ‘Two and Half Men’s’ Angus T. Jones 2012-11-28T11:52:50-06:00 Rebecca Cusey

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Angus T. Jones
photo: IMDB.com

I remember well the last time I watched the hit TV show “Two and a Half Men.”

It was back in ancient history when Charlie Sheen still headlined the show, before tiger blood and #winning became household terms.

Sheen played a rich playboy, Jon Cryer (Duckie for those of us from the 80s), his brother, and Jones the brother’s son. They all lived together merrily in the playboy’s mansion. (Ashton Kutcher has since replaced Sheen after Sheen’s very public meltdown.)

The scene etched in my memory showed Jake, Jones’s character, in the kitchen in the morning just trying to eat some cereal. At the time, his character was prepubescent, a child of ten or eleven or maybe twelve. As he was eating his cereal, one of his uncle’s hot young conquests came into the kitchen clad only in a t-shirt and sexy panties. As she reached up, up, up in a cabinet for a coffee cup, her shapely derriere was exposed. The humor came from Jake trying to peek at the revealed heiny and pretending not to.

Sadly, perhaps, I have been jaded by years of movie criticdom. You can say the F-word all day in front of me and I won’t blink. Two consenting adults wrestling and heaving around? Yawn. Blast some brain matter all over a R-rated murder movie and I keep munching my popcorn. In fact, Judd Apatow, who knows no lines he won’t cross, is one of my favorite directors.

But the scene of a little boy and a shapely bottom grieved me.

Are we at the point now in our culture when we laugh at the inappropriate sexualization of a child? Is it funny to parade loose, scantily clad women in front of barely adolescent boys?

That’s what’s funny?

As a mother, I would protect my children from such sexualization, and from the message that women and sex are little more than shapely bodies to be used and ogled for men’s pleasure.

Maybe that’s just me.

When Angus T. Jones surfaced in a video saying the show is filth, he’s not far off.

But let’s be clear in the storm of scorn and ridicule that is raining on his head.

When Jones signed on to the show, he was a child. He was ten years old when the show started in 2003. As a child, his parents had the final decision on whether to take the role, with advice from his agent and other people. He did not technically choose. Once he had a contract, which in Hollywood are the legal equivalent of Fort Knox, he also did not have a choice to leave the show.

That he has grown to a young man of 19, able to think for himself and consider the values of the show for himself is laudable not laughable. We would all want our own children to think for themselves as they became adults.

Jones has since apologized to his cast and crew, although he has not retracted his “filth” comment. He renewed his contract for another year. His return, although in a diminished role, not only means he receives $8 million. It also means others benefit. When you star on a successful sitcom, there are hundreds and hundreds of minor cast, crew, and assorted assistants who depend on the show for their livelihood. Throwing a show into turmoil is not a small thing.

Perhaps Jones can have some impact on the show, perhaps all his impact will be speaking out in the public arena. His newfound faith seems to be motivating him well. However, the best outcome would be if instead of deriding a young man who has begun to come into his own, we had a grown-up conversation about what lines remain in our culture and if we’re comfortable with that.

I know I’m not comfortable with the show that made a comedy theme of hypersexualizing everything in Jake’s world.

To me it seems closer to child abuse, of both the character Jake and the actor who played him, than to humor.

Previous Post

November 16, 2012

Review: 'Anna Karenina' Simply Stunning Exploration of Love in Many Forms

Next Post

November 30, 2012 Review: 'Killing Them Softly' Makes a Lot out of Murder

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Becky's Picks Children's Movies DVD releases Entertainment News Faith on Film Featured Hunger Games In Theaters Interviews Life, Etc. Mixed Nuts Movie Reviews Poliflix Scroogewatch slider Television Uncategorized

Select a Month December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 April 2011 March 2011

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What is the name for a Christian adult education class, especially for converts?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Martyrdom Exegesis Catechism Ecumenism