« A few thoughts... | Main | Odds & Ends »
Violent Movies and "The Passion"
LDS author Orson Scott Card has a new essay up, discussing the 'commandment' not to watch R-rated movies. In reality, it's a continuation of the discussion among members since February about "The Passion of the Christ".
Brother Card has seen "The Passion..." and is unapologetic about it, despite the number of Church members who have criticized him for it. (He's understandably a little defensive about it, and thus followed his essay...)
Note: I wrote on this topic in a previous post in early March here. This will in part be a repeat of what I wrote then...
I'm not criticizing Brother Card, or Dr. Robert Millet, BYU Dean of Religious Education and my former stake president, nor any of my personal friends who has seen "The Passion..." (I have not). My comments are merely to the point that the logic behind some of the members' reasoning behind seeing the movie doesn't quite add up...
Brother Card in his essay correctly points out that Church members have been counseled to avoid 'bad' movies (sometimes specifically mentioning 'R-rated' movies) because we should avoid content that's 'lewd, suggestive, obscene, or immoral'--profanity and illicit sexual material, essentially. The logic is clear: watching and listening to that kind of material leaves you spiritually weaker and "the mind through which this filth passes is never the same afterwards" as Ezra Taft Benson phrased it.
What Brother Card's essay does not discuss, however, is the negative effect (if any) of watching violent movies...
Some movies are rated R for violence alone. As one who watched lots of violent movies in my 'Gentile' days in high school, I can testify that there are many movies which have little to no profanity or sexual material, but have quite graphic displays of limb dismemberment, gunshot wounds of various kinds, stabbings, torture, you name it... If we accept that seeing and hearing profanity and 'lewd' material has a destructive influence on the mind, what happens when we watch violent material? Do we become desensitized or 'hardened' to pain and suffering, perhaps? What are the psychological effects? Brother Card mentions an experience where the images of a porn movie he saw when he was younger stayed in his mind for a long time afterwards. Would graphic images of violence stay in the mind with the same regularity?
Here, then, is the real problem: "The Passion..." is a very, very violent movie--as everyone who has seen it has attested to--and if watching violent movies is destructive to the mind at all then that must apply to "The Passion" as well. It doesn't matter if it's based on truth. It doesn't matter if it also has a spiritually uplifting message. It doesn't matter if the target of the violence is the fundamental character in our religion. If watching extreme violence is 'wrong' (damaging to the mind), then it's 'wrong' here also.
And the reverse is true, also: If watching the violence in "The Passion..." is NOT damaging in any way, then why would watching ANY violent movie be wrong?
Jesus Christ, the person, is not in "The Passion...", of course--it's actor Jim Caviezel portraying the part of Jesus Christ. Suppose later this year, Jim Caviezel happens to be in another R-rated movie--one where coincidently his character also gets scourged and crucified during the course of the film. Would this film be appropriate for members to see or not? If not, what exactly is the difference? The actual violent content would be the same...
I don't feel the 'appropriateness/inappropriateness' of watching violent movies has been addressed adequately by Brother Card or others... If violence is damaging to the mind, then there still is a legitimate reason for Church members to avoid seeing "The Passion..." regardless of any underlying spiritual content. If not, then one really can't complain about any violent movie as being 'inappropriate' for viewing.
As I mentioned before, I won't be seeing "The Passion..." because, frankly, even the LDS film "Lamb of God" is a little too high on the violence scale for me. That's just me, though, and I recognize that many Church members have seen "The Passion..." and had a wonderful, uplifting experience. However, I still think questions remain about its appropriateness...
May 18, 2004 in Movie Analysis | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/748223
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Violent Movies and "The Passion":
Comments
I haven't seen "The Passion...," so I can't comment on it specifically.
But I think there's a difference between "violence" and "gratuitous violence" in movies, and that difference is based on context. (There's a similar difference in real-life violence: Contrast "I once shot a man in Reno just to watch him die" with "I once shot a man in Reno to keep him from murdering a busload of orphans and nuns.")
From what I understand, the scourging scene in "The Passion" is intended to illustrate the extreme suffering Christ went through on our behalf, and its graphic nature gives it more impact -- which may help people to be more grateful to Christ.
If a movie with the same actor was made, involving scourging and crucifixion -- Spartacus, maybe? -- would there be the need for such a graphic depiction of Spartacus' suffering? Most people have no need to feel particularly grateful to Spartacus for his suffering. No, the motivation for showing such graphic violence would probably be "We need to top that scene in 'The Passion.'" That would be a gratuitous use of violence, and therefore morally distinguishable.
I wrote bit on the subject of violence in movies over on my blog, with regard to "X2." http://ericjamesstone.com/blog/archives/000158.html
Posted by: Eric James Stone | May 18, 2004 4:31:20 PM
"If watching extreme violence is 'wrong' (damaging to the mind), then it's 'wrong' here also".
Like many things I think the experience should get judged based on what it does to or for the person. I wonder how many angels watched the events surrounding Christ's cruxifiction? It certainly seems like a number of the prophets had visions concerning it. Are these too wrong? Is "real" violence more acceptable than portrayed violence? Not everything people watch is for entertainment value. Most of the movies I choose to watch are more about issues. I know my friends certainly don't find flims like city of the lost children entertaining. To me, at least, that changes the meaning of certain events within them. Absolutes have a nasty way of not being applicable in every situation. Of course I totally respect anyone's decision on the issue. Your motivations for not seeing the movie seem quite sensible.
Posted by: chris goble | May 19, 2004 9:51:49 PM
I read Orson Scott Card's essay and it seemed a bit too impassioned, a bit too defensive. Yes it's important to arrive at the truth, and yes, the truth will set us free. And yes, some people are a bit too obsessed MPAA ratings system and with the principle that members of the Church should not see an R-rated movies. Clearly there is no connection whatsoever between the Church and the organization that rates films -- so how can we actually perceive the rating system as completely authoritative?
At the same time, I don't need to see Mel Gibson's depiction of the crucifixion to arrive at the truth or to attain a remission of my sins. I seriously considered seeing it, and then decided that it wasn't actually that big a deal. It's not unimaginable that this movie could be a faith-promoting vehicle for many people. But I am already fully cognizant of the fact that the atonement was a bloody, violent and tortuous process -- and I don't need Mel Gibson to drive home that fact for me.
I think sometimes those Mormons who oppose the viewing of R-rated movies are too self-righteous. And those Mormons who avidly defend their right to judge a movie's inappropriateness for themselves can be a bit too condescending.
Perhaps both groups should be consigned to attend the same movie theater in the afterlife.
Posted by: danithew | May 20, 2004 11:12:43 AM
Chris brings up a good point...what happens when you're exposed to 'real' violence on a daily basis. Say, in the military or in a hospital... It would be interesting to see a study done on the psychological impacts on constant exposure to violence, real or fake.
Mormon commented in Mormon 2 that "a continual scene of wickedness and abominations has been before mine eyes ever since I have been sufficient to behold the ways of man..." He didn't have much of a choice given the time he lived in, but you could imagine that all the things he saw would have some impact on his psyche, if only that the images would stay in his mind for a long time afterwards. Sounds to me like Mormon would have gladly avoided these 'visions' if he could have--and makes me wonder again if avoiding violent content when we have the option (such as seeing a movie) wouldn't be more wise...
Posted by: The Baron | May 20, 2004 11:42:11 AM
Perhaps like many, I think the R-issues have been pretty well covered. However I do think the discussion of violence in general is interesting. Does our modern revulsion from violence partly stem from our dissociation with how we get our food? For instance, do farmers or hunters who prepare their own meat have different views of violence than people that live in the city? Do things change between the two groups if there is a perceived reason for the violence? Living in a rural area now, I tend to see quite a difference in the association people have with violence. From my limited perspective, rural, ranch based people tend to view violence as more a natural part of life. Sure violence is lamentable, but it may also be inevitable depending on what people choose to do. It is less of an abstract idea that needs to get banished, and more of a reality that gets dealt with. I wonder if our culture's focus on the individual has made us more prone to fear death? Of course I always wonder why we are so fearful of physical pain. It seems like it really has overtaken our culture and significantly affected our way of thinking.
Posted by: chris goble | May 20, 2004 1:56:55 PM
I actually did go see The Passion. I walked out of the theater with some puffy red eyes and an increased desire to do good, as well as not take the atonement for granted. It made me more greatful for the gospel, and it humbled me. I can honestly say I felt the spirit during the movie.
I'm not saying other people should go watch it ... but if "by the fruits of their labor shall ye know them", I'd say this movie can't be all that bad because the end product of me watching was an increased testimony of Christ's divinity.
I do think a lot of Mormon's get so hung up on the ratings of movies, that they excuse themselves from any accountability for using their own brain about what movies are acceptable viewing material, and which one's aren't.
For example, I've talked with a number of people about The Passion who always give me the same self-rightouse response of "I don't see R movies" when I ask them if they've seen it.
I immediately respond by asking them if they saw Titanic - to which they all (so far) have answered "yes". So you tell me, which is worse, seeing Kate Winslett naked, and watching a movie that glamorizes pre-marital sex as romantic and acceptable ... or watching a rated R movie that is violent only because it depicts the cruel acts once inflicted on an innocent man?
I guess I just don't like how some people hide behind a PG 13 rating and act like it's ok to see any movie as long as it's not rated R. I'd WAY rather take my teenage son (once he's that old) to a movie like The Passion than some movie like Titanic where there are naked girls and sex being flaunted on the screen.
I'd rather make up my own mind about what movies are acceptable, rather than leave that up to some board who rates movies. I just wish some people would pull their heads out and acting like it's so black and white - that all R movies are the spawn of Satan, and anything else is totally acceptable.
Posted by: Kevin | May 20, 2004 6:54:07 PM
There are also those LDS members who are extra-righteous and refuse to watch PG-13 movies. Ever met one of those? I worked with a girl some years ago who expressed disappointment in her date because he took her to see Robin Hood (the Kevin Costner flick). If I'm remembering right, she got up and walked out in the middle of the film. I know for certain that she was adamantly determined not to watch PG-13 movies and let it seriously effect her opinions of the unfortunate guy who had asked her out.
I've heard of people building a fence around the law to protect themselves from disobedience, but this seemed a bit much.
Posted by: danithew | May 21, 2004 7:59:45 AM
I know several people who eschew all PG-13's--certainly a defensible decision which I can respect.
Still, though, in this situation that girl is wrong. If the movie rating mattered to her that much it should have been brought up BEFORE they went to the theater ("Just to let you know, I don't watch PG-13 or R movies...") Even if she didn't know (although she should have) that the movie they bought tickets for was PG-13, it should have been discussed beforehand.
(I'm trying to think of what PG-13 material that Robin Hood had in it, anyway... Oh, yeah, there was a waterfall scene with Kevin Costner's bare butt, wasn't there? I wonder if that's the part she walked out on...)
Posted by: The Baron | May 21, 2004 8:54:03 AM
I would normally agree with you on the consistency issue here, and I do think Bro. Card's essay was a bit too defensive. My line of reason is simply that we are commanded to remember His sufferings and death, letting it "rest in your minds forever", as Moroni 9:25 points out. Is the movie necessary to do so? No. But can it help some people do so? Yes. If you are not one of the people it will help do so, then don't see it. Just realize there are some that are not any less righteous that see the movie to help them. (I know you realize this; I mean that as a statement to the general public.)
Sam
Posted by: Sam | Jan 18, 2005 2:05:30 AM
