« Gay marriage/adoption revisited... | Main | "God be with you until we meet again..." »
'Decent' films
Another excellent article from the consistently compelling Steven Greydanus of Decent Films.
The article discusses the difficult question of what makes a movie 'decent' or 'good', and whether or not a movie can contain 'bad' material--even to an 'R-rated' extent--and still be 'decent' at heart. The article is written from a Catholic perspective, which in reality is really no different than a Mormon perspective.
I'll admit (as readers of this site know) to being fairly cynical when it comes to the idea of R-rated movies being 'acceptable' from a Church standards standpoint. (Tangent alert: If the Church came out with a statement tomorrow that said "Church members should not watch R-rated movies ever", what percentage of the Church members who currently watch R-rated movies do you think would stop? I say (without any proof, of course) that it would be less than 25%--meaning I think most people watch them because they want to, with the current Church policy of judging movies without regard to rating acting as a cover, not because they really feel in their hearts that they could accurately defend R-rated movie A, B, or C as conforming to Church standards in a hypothetical 'decency trial'...) Greydanus makes some very good points, though--and I fully admit context matters...in some cases.
Recently, I had a discussion with a friend about a recent (PG-13) movie he and his family had rented. He said he felt it was 'inappropriate' (the Mormon key word) because "It had a pregnant teenage girl in it."
(pause)
I waited for him to go on ("...and?"), but that was all he said. He might have reason to be sensitive, having teenage sons and daughters himself, but in reality I don't think his reason is good enough. It's not enough just to have a pregnant teen in a movie, but it would have to somehow condone or 'celebrate' sinful behavior in order to be 'inappropriate'. (I haven't seen the movie myself, but frankly I doubt any movie with a pregnant teenager could 'celebrate' sinful behavior--i.e. show teenage pregnancy as something 'cool'. It's usually fairly obvious to even young children that being pregnant in high school (or earlier) is a big inconvenience and should be avoided. More common (and dangerous) would be the depiction of casual teen sex without any consequences, such as pregnancy...) In some instances--like teen pregnancy--showing immoral behavior and its consequences would actually encourage moral behavior, which in the end suggests it could count as a 'decent' film.
Yet, you can take 'context' too far as well. If you read movie reviews from Roger Ebert (among others) of R or NC-17 movies with lots of sex and nudity in them, you'll often see it described as "graphic, but not p0rnographic". What's the difference between the two designations, you might ask? Obviously the difference must lie in the context since the content is more or less the same--the 'p0rnographic' designation means its sole purpose for existing is to arouse the audience while the 'graphic' scene exists as an integral part of a larger story. Yet discussion of the context is somewhat meaningless unless the actual content is harmless--if seeing explicit nudity and sex is somehow harmful to the mind and spirit in some way, then what comes before or after it in the movie, or what the filmmakers' intent was, doesn't really matter. That's the key question (and no, I don't believe it has a black-and-white 'yes it does', 'no it doesn't' answer): does hearing/seeing profanity/sex and/or violence have a detrimental effect on the human mind and spirit? And if so, then to that extent the context of the scene or dialogue doesn't matter if the impact is the same... It's different than in the above situation where you see a pregnant teenage girl in a movie, or seeing someone shoplift something from a store in a movie--two things that on the face of it are harmless, so you can consider the context more carefully: does the movie condone or condemn this behavior?
It's just like in discussions of the 'letter of the law' versus the 'spirit of the law'--you can't just blindly say one is more important than the other in all situations. Sometimes context matters over content, and sometimes the opposite. That's just one of the many difficulties we have in making good entertainment choices and seeking after 'decent' movies...
October 26, 2004 in Entertainment | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/1327412
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference 'Decent' films:
Comments
For me it's pretty simple. I like quality films with smart dialogue and an interesting story. Those kinds of movies are harder to find but in a way it's kind of a fun challenge.
I saw "Saved," the movie I believe you were referring to. Yes, the girl is pregnant and she's a teenager and there are issues of homosexuality and such but I look past that and see a witty satire addressing a subculture in the American fabric -- evangelical Christian kids who co-opt elements of secular society to better fit their worldview.
I thought "Saved" was pretty well done and while on a moral level I object to the immoral behavior of the characters, I understand that it was featured for effect. Plus it was produced by R.E.M.'s Michael Stipe.
As for me, I'm so fed up with the local Lackluster video outlet that I joined Netflix today. My first three will be the 1940 film "Brigham Young: Frontiersman" (I've never seen it), 1981's "The Watcher in the Woods" (still scares me to this day) and "The Work of Director Spike Jonze." I have pretty wholesome tastes, really.
Posted by: Andrew W. Griffin | Oct 26, 2004 3:59:55 PM
"does hearing/seeing profanity/sex and/or violence have a detrimental effect on the human mind and spirit?"
I don't mean to take this out of context, but I've been contemplating this question on a larger real-life scale lately. There are a lot of really evil things that happen in the world, and I think in many cases it would be wrong to avoid knowing these things.
For instance a documentary about sexual slavery might contain a lot of really horrible sexually graphic information. But (some) people need to know these things so that we can work to end it. Are these people harming their minds and spirits. Or do their good motives somehow negate the harm that the possession of this evil knowledge might cause.
Is any knowledge inherently evil, in and of itself, or is it the meaning we bring to it that matters. And if the meaning we bring to it does matter, to what degree, under what circumstances, would this be true.
Posted by: Lisa | Oct 26, 2004 4:50:21 PM
I have often said I have been more offended by the content of a PG-13 rated movie than by one rated R.
I don't select a movie by the rating, I select a movie by the content and the quality.
For example, could you really make a movie like "Patton" without the language? On the other hand, how many movies out today could do without that language and be just as good (if not better?).
Posted by: LDS Elder | Oct 26, 2004 8:41:52 PM
Good point, Lisa, this is something I've been pondering too. There's a NC-17 movie called "Requiem of a Dream" from a few years ago with Jennifer Connelly, which I haven't seen, but from my understanding contains many graphic depictions of the horrors of drug abuse. On one hand, seeing very graphic things could lead to psychological harm to the mind and spirit...yet, obviously, watching the movie would undoubtedly make you less likely to do drugs yourself...which is exactly the point. 'End' justifing the 'means'? Don't know...
The movie my friend was talking about wasn't "Saved"--although it was a Mandy Moore movie from earlier in the year whose name is escaping me right now... The Patton comparison is apt: Patton has profanity because the man himself used profanity (albeit PG profanity) and I'm not sure you could make an accurate movie with no swearing whatsoever. That's the tradeoff (and something that's directly addressed in the "Decent Films" article) Still you have to ask whether hearing constant profanity leads to any 'harming of the mind or spirit' or makes it more likely you'll use profanity yourself. If so, the context of the movie (whether it was a true story and accurate) is to an extent irrelevant...
Posted by: The Baron | Oct 27, 2004 8:26:10 AM
Interesting points. I'd like to make a clarification on your tangential point about the Church releasing a statement banning all R-movies, and how many would actually stop. You said you think that less than 25% would actually stop. I think there are two camps of members who watch R-rated movies (both of which, of course, want to watch them): those who don't care what the authorities have said (or not said), and those that defend their actions because there they feel that there is no such official statement/position by the Church. I think your number would actually be far less than 25% for the first camp, but well over 75% for the second. I fall into the second camp and I know that if there was an official statement, I would follow it without hesitation. But there isn't and that makes the line really fuzzy. (that line has been discussed on other blogs, and I don't think it's what you want this thread to be about, so I will leave it at that)
I like your point about mere content vs. message. Having drugs or rebellious behavior in a movie doesn't make it bad, it's what the message is about those things.
I've seen Requiem for a Dream and I would hesitate justifying it because it keeps me from doing drugs (drugs have never even been a temptation for me). However, I might suggest that any movie that inspires me to be a better person, might be a good enough justification. Isn't that the point, to keep molding our being to be better, to be more like Christ? Seeing the violence in Saving Private Ryan is jarring, but being jarred by it is what makes me better. However, I'm not sure that the violence in Chucky will help me become a better person.
As far as p0rnography is concerned, I think there are some important factors to consider, primarily what's the creator's intent? and how does the viewer feel when s/he views it? I wrote a post on the differences between p0rn, nudity, and lack-of-clothes which, I think, falls somewhere within your argument.
I've always wondered how The Book of Mormon would be rated were it made into a film (a good, realistic one, not the shoddy excuse that happened a few months ago). I would imagine it would be rated R. I also have wondered what would happen if books started to be rated (the movie rating system is self-imposed, with the purpose of informing parents what their children will be potentially watching). It's funny to think that we wouldn't be able to read such books as the Bible and The Book of Mormon because it has excessive violence.
Posted by: Rusty | Oct 27, 2004 1:41:51 PM
Well, if the Prophet came out and said do not watch any R rated movies ever, I would absolutely not ever watch any R rated movies. I would throw away my Braveheart, Schindler's List, etc.
However, I think that we have to remain personally vigilant all the time as to things that are offensive to the Spirit, whether that is music, or tv, or movies, or books, or anything else. We don't have ratings for books, or we wouldn't be able to read Shakespeare, or the scriptures even, as they are too violent, etc. to not get an R rating. But we can know what things are uplifting and what are desensitizing, if we are on the watch for it. If we tie our standards to an outside ratings committee's standards, then as those standards slip (as they likely will) over the years, our own standards will be pulled down with them. We must as always take personal responsibility for what we take into ourselves and into our homes.
Good question.
Peggy
Posted by: Peggy Snow Cahill | Oct 27, 2004 5:51:45 PM
"I think there are two camps of members who watch R-rated movies (both of which, of course, want to watch them): those who don't care what the authorities have said (or not said), and those that defend their actions because there they feel that there is no such official statement/position by the Church. I think your number would actually be far less than 25% for the first camp, but well over 75% for the second."
Those numbers are probably right--although the real question, of course, is how the Church members are divided percentage-wise between the two groups.
In regards to the second group, I'm still cynical as to the purity of the "I would stop watching R-rated movies instantly, if the Church said not to...but they haven't, so I still do" philosophy of the second group. I don't mean to beat a dead horse again (well...maybe I do), but the Church's not emphasizing the "No R's" teaching anymore doesn't mean there's no alternate teaching in its place. The current teaching as I understand it is "avoid movies that don't reflect Church standards"--which means in theory all those in the second group who claim to follow Church leaders' teachings should be able to defend each and every R-rated movie they see as to it "supporting Church standards" in the hypothetical decency court I mentioned in the main post.
Some movies are easily defensible in theory: "The Passion of the Christ" certainly, "Schindler's List", "Saving Private Ryan"... (the "Matrix" movies have their defenders as well, and I'm partial to "Unforgiven"--#2 on my all-time list...), but, like with the group of Church members I know who trotted off to see "The Grudge" last weekend, I'm cynical that a lot of these members really could defend the appropriateness of most of the movies they see in a 'court' if called upon to do so, nor do I think they've really thought about the matter at all--which means in reality they're solidly in Group #1 even though they pay lip-service to the principles of Group #2.
Anyway, that's probably enough horse-beating for now...
Posted by: The Baron | Oct 28, 2004 1:20:05 PM
You Can’t Pet a Rattlesnake
Elder David E. Sorensen
Of the Presidency of the Seventy
"can you rise up and wield the power of God to defend righteousness? Can you stand in holy places?
We have all accepted the responsibility to pattern our life after the Master."
"Don’t allow the poison to touch your souls, brethren. Remember, “He that is righteous is favored of God.”
I think it comes down to asking yourself two questions.
Will the Holy Ghost be with me while I watch this?
Would I watch this if the Savior were here?
Posted by: Liz | Nov 13, 2004 8:28:46 PM
