OK, so being a semi-recent convert to the LDS church I find it a little strange OSC views and then reviews movies such as the 'Wedding Crashers' and shows such as 'Sex and the City' when he is an active member of the LDS church (as far as I know). -- When the church preaches against seeing 'R' movies and anything resembling pornography (titilating - as R movies often are *note this carefully).
Is OSC just trying to be cool to show that Mormons can follow mostly strict rules and still not be boring and bland?
I am inactive for some of those very reasons -- I cannot play Grand Theft Auto and listen to gangsta rap, watch R movies such as the Wedding Crashers etc (all things I like to do) and then go talk on Sundays about Jesus and tell others not to do as I do.
...And maybe being inactive, it is now my duty to pick at other members and sow discord. Perhaps someone else is writing this. Anyone else feel this way about OSC? Though, I love everything OSC does. --And like the feeling that if another member does it, so can I!
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
quote: Remember, President Benson is speaking to the young men of the Church when he says:
<snip>
"We counsel you, young men, not to pollute your minds with such degrading matter, for the mind through which this filth passes is never the same afterwards. Don't see R-rated movies or vulgar videos or participate in any entertainment that is immoral, suggestive, or pornographic. Don't listen to music that is degrading" (Ensign, May 1986, p 43).
The mention of R-rated movies is clearly linked to a specific goal -- keeping one's mind free of entertainment that is "immoral, suggestive, or pornographic." The purpose of the Prophet's wise counsel is to keep us from entertainment that will excite sexual lust in an inappropriate context.
quote: What about the counsel of Elder H. Burke Peterson: "Again I say, leave it alone. Turn it off, walk away from it, burn it, erase it, destroy it. I know it is hard counsel we give when we say movies that are R-rated, and many with PG-13 ratings, are produced by satanic influences. Our standards should not be dictated by the rating system. I repeat, because of what they really represent, these types of movies, music, tapes, etc. serve the purposes of the author of all darkness" (Gen. Conf. Oct. 1993).
Read the whole article yourself - I can't do it justice with snipping bits. Also, this has been discussed before, so feel free to use the search feature.
And if you're going to pick and chose what other members of the church do as a basis for justifying your own actions, then, well, you're going to have an interesting and potentially conflicted life.
Posted by sands (Member # 8344) on :
just because they are rated R does not mean they do not show good morals. he watches the movies to spare us from watching the bad ones.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
I am a believing member of the Church who sometimes sees R-rated movies. That certainly doesn't mean I think all R-rated (or even PG-13) movies are hunky dory. I think God gave us brains for a reason, and using our own judgement in the matter is much better than following the sheep mentality of "R-rated=baaaaaad".
However, some people I know in the Church (including my sister and some who frequent this forum) who have made a conscious choice not to see any R-rated movies. I've come to see that choice as an effort to live better lives overall. While I think they may be missing out on a few things, I commend them for their effort.
It's not like movies are a mandatory part of our existence. It's entertainment. In the end, it all really boils down to a matter of individual tastes. People have and will have completely fulfillng lives without seing a single movie.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: When the church preaches against seeing 'R' movies and anything resembling pornography (titilating - as R movies often are *note this carefully).
I believe that official church policy on this is slightly more flexible than you may have understood.
Posted by Zarex (Member # 8504) on :
<b>Quote</b>---- <i><red>I am inactive for some of those very reasons -- I cannot play Grand Theft Auto and listen to gangsta rap, watch R movies such as the Wedding Crashers etc (all things I like to do) and then go talk on Sundays about Jesus and tell others not to do as I do.</red></i>
I think that what you have here, is a conflict of conscience. However, I would not let that keep you away from church. Just because you go to church doesn't mean you have to preach gospel to anyone. And one's small flaws should not keep them from reaping the benefits of the gospel. No one is perfect and God knows that, so by keeping yourself from church due to the assumption that you "shouldn't be there" is, in my opinion, even worse than your reasons for not going in the first place.
Posted by Zarex (Member # 8504) on :
Apparently html doesn't work on this forum.
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
You have to use the UBB code. If you hit full reply form, it'll give you buttons that will help you out.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
Alternatively, memorise the code - and make it quicker. This Quick Reply function proved useful, even though the Forum was buggered for a couple of days in a row.
Posted by Soara (Member # 6729) on :
isn't there a difference between regular Morman church and LDS? and LDS is much much stricter.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
They are one in the same. "Mormon" is generally a word used to describe individual members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.
Posted by Sister Annie (Member # 8480) on :
There are offshoot groups that will also identify as "Mormons," but if you don't live in Southern Utah or Missouri, chances are you won't run into many of them. Most of the time when you hear of the "Mormon" church, what is meant is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
LDS, LSD, It's all the same to me.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
zarex, I would have to disagree with you slightly. Although committing what I would consider minor sins or offenses is far from grounds to not feel worthy of going to church, I do think there has to be a recognition that some of those things might need repenting of.
On the other hand, excepting perhaps "Wedding Crashers" depending on its contents, what was listed might be more of a sin of the heart more than of action. Its not like playing or listening to that actually makes you a sinner. However, it can lead you to want to do those things if not careful. And that leads to the hard question of how much influence do things have on who we are and what we do. A question that is at the center of the "R rated" movie discussion.
Posted by Zarex (Member # 8504) on :
True, there has to be recognition of sins committed and contrition on the part of the "sinner." However we believe that a fundamental part of the process of repentance is taking of the sacrament. Renewing one's covenants with Christ, being the final step to repentance can't be left out. My father told me that the only applicable reason for not going to church is if you have been excommunicated. Even then you can still repent. Even disfellowshipped members, while unalowed to partake of the sacrement can still attend church and be edified.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Here's what OSC said about one particular R-rated movie, The Passion of the Christ:
quote: (And for those who piously refuse to see R-rated films, I can only say: There are movies that children should not see, and this is one of them. But for a Christian adult to refuse to see it as a matter of moral principle, as if this movie will somehow dirty you, moves you over into the category of those who let the letter of the law keep them from its spirit.)
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-02-29-1.html
Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
Personally I think OSC justifies himself time and time again, and his condemning others for refusing to see films merely based on "moral principle" smacks of irony, frankly.
That being said, a cornerstone of the LDS faith is that, ultimately, personal choice is left up to each of us. True there's social pressure and all that, but we each are responsible for our own actions. Everyone must decide if the choices we make are keeping us in tune with those ideals that make us unique. If he can look himself in the mirror and feel that he's in keeping with what's taught...I don't think "Wedding Crashers" fits in that category, but that's just me.
With that in mind OSC is free to watch whatever he dang well pleases, and we're in no position to blame him for our own choices.
Posted by jamesbond007 (Member # 8513) on :
Those were gentle replies.
Admittedly, though, I still tend to 'feel better' if I see another member doing something 'gray' and appearing physically unharmed. Then I feel better stepping in myself once I see the water is tepid.
And I wish the church warnings would have been more specific--how about: Stay away from 'R' movies <<unless the films are in good spirit by so and so's best judgement or it's about religion in a good way, or it's really cool sci-fi >>
Posted by jamesbond007 (Member # 8513) on :
| IP Logged |
Hehe, good thing I was tunneling through a proxy server. OSC will never take me alive! (probably not)
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
quote: Admittedly, though, I still tend to 'feel better' if I see another member doing something 'gray' and appearing physically unharmed. Then I feel better stepping in myself once I see the water is tepid.
So this means you don't really make a stand for or against anything, instead just going with peer pressure and following the lead of others?
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
I don't want my church (Catholic) to make precise rules for me. If we need a set of such rules, we got 'em in the Law of Moses; but we stopped doing that in the first century. I don't think it works as well as clear internal intent.
So I'm with OSC on this one. Passion was a wonderful, moving experience that drew me closer to Christ. And I wish I'd known better than to watch Jay and Silent Bob.
Posted by OlavMah (Member # 756) on :
I dunno, I stopped watching R rated movies as an experiment, to see if there was anything to Pres. Hinckley's counsel. I didn't like it at first because some of my favorite movies were ones like Stand By Me and The Milagro Beanfield War, but stuck it out for a few months and then, like flipping a switch, I didn't want to anymore. I don't think all R rated movies are bad. Some of them address R rated topics in an intelligent, insightful, and moving way. I just think most of them are pretty worthless (many films regardless of rating are worthless) and that I've got better things to do with my time than to go dredging through scenes of foul language and gratuitous sex to find the good ones.
I've also found that my sensitivity has increased. Even non-R rated movies that I remember fondly, I'll now rewatch and think, "Wow, these people are swearing a lot," or, "So *why* are these people having sex? Why are we spending five minutes watching this pointless scene that doesn't advance the story?"
It really isn't about "following the rules" so that you can punch your card and be a good Mormon. The church leaders are out there offering free advice, and I think it's some pretty good stuff. Worth an experiment on, at least. I choose to be a lot more strict than OSC is according to his article.
Posted by JLM (Member # 7800) on :
When I read Card's article on R-rated movies, it stuck me that he missed the whole point. We have been counceled to avoid media with salicious content, extreme violence or degrading language and themes. In fact, there are many practices and activites we have been counciled to avoid, for example gambling. On top of that, we are to avoid the appearance of evil, not just the abstinance of evil.
There is a commonly told story among the LDS community of a man trying to hire a truck diver to carry goods over a mountain pass. To each of the three drivers he asked the question, "How close to the edge of the cliff can you safely drive the truck?"
The first replies, "I can drive within 3 feet of the edge."
The second boasts, "I can drive within 1 foot of the edge."
The third meekly states, "I'd stay as far away from the edge as possible."
The third man got the job.
Some R-rated films are probably OK. The majority are probably not. Some are easy to judge ahead of time, and some are not. Following the priciple of staying as far from the cliff as possible, we have been counciled not to see R-rated films because there is a high probability that the content will degrading to the soul. PG13 and PG films pose less risk of having inappropriate content but even then we need to use judgment.
I am dissapointed with Card for his choice to go see Wedding Crashers. He admitted that he knew the film was going to be a "sex farce" up front, and his decription of this genre of film further convinces me that it is likely not good for the consumption of man.
Anyway, I didn't mean to sound preachy, but these are my thoughts.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
I haven't stopped watching R-rated movies, and have had some cool, transformative experiences as a result that I wouldn't want to trade out for another teaspoon of outward piety.
But I HAVE noticed that as I've gotten older, I've sort of gotten past the adolescent fascination with all things "edgy" and have started to think a lot more about the meanings behind the content of a film.
When the protagonist murders somebody when he doesn't have to, and I'm supposed to accept it, that really pisses me off. When sex is portrayed in a fantastical, immoral, consequence-free sort of way, it pisses me off. When I run into these kinds of roadblocks, I reject the film almost instinctively, and I've learned that I don't ever really want to see movies that I know or suspect will have these sorts of messages.
It's strange ... among non-Mormons, my taste in movies would probably come across as conservative, or even prudish. I've never willingly watched an American Pie movie, for instance, even though I was smack in the middle of the target audience when they came out ... or a slasher flick, or even some "serious" movies that strike me as promoting (consciously or not) false or harmful ideals.
Yet among Mormons, I'm shockingly liberal because I watched City of God, Dark City, Schindler's List, The Passion of the Christ, The Ring, etc, etc, and don't feel like I need to repent for it. These films all depicted evil, sometimes disturbingly so, yet I felt that they influenced my life for the better through their portrayal of the choices made by the characters. Even when they made the wrong choices.
I don't go as far as OSC and criticize individuals for the movies they choose to watch themselves. I figure, it's up to them what they feel comfortable watching, and what level of risk they are willing to accept. However, I take serious issue with members of my church who take it upon themselves to decide what OTHER people should be watching. The prophet has the right to make those kinds of recommendations, and I always take his words seriously, and try to follow the spirit and intent behind them. Other lay members, when they take upon themselves the responsibility for deciding what I should watch ... they should look first in their own eye.
Posted by OlavMah (Member # 756) on :
I'm not sure that's "shockingly liberal". Sounds pretty common to me. I still have a copy of Dark City that another active member gave me, although I don't watch it anymore. Most of my singles branch (when I was in one) went to see The Matrix Reloaded within the first month after its release. I think it's only shocking to people who think that acting shocked is a good way to show how devout they are....
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by JLM: On top of that, we are to avoid the appearance of evil, not just the abstinance of evil.
I think this is one of the most misunderstood and misrepresented scriptures in all the standard works. If you're concerned about what might look evil to your neighbors, then you're not avoiding evil for the right reasons; you're doing it because you're afraid of what your neighbors will think of you. Christ did plenty of things that appeared evil to the Jews of the time. I don't think he was very concerned about avoiding things that appeared evil. And if you look in the footnotes of that verse, you'll see that it can be translated to read "all kinds of evil." That's a far cry from "everything that appears to be evil."
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Olav, among the Mormons I know personally in my ward, you're right, there's nothing shocking about my behavior.
Among the Mormons I typically meet online, at websites-that-shall-not-be-named, I'm shockingly liberal.
Since I discuss this more often with the latter group, I come away feeling like that's how everyone looks at me
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
You're not shockingly liberal until someone uses the phrase "shocked and appalled" to describe their reaction to your behavior.
Posted by OlavMah (Member # 756) on :
Actually Puppy, you were the one who gave me Dark City, now that I check your profile. So that kills one example of how "other" Mormons behave.
You want it back? Like I said, I've gone R-movie free. (Except the time I had my husband and my best friend, both LDS, watch The Milagro Beanfield War with me. I didn't know it was R until it flashed on the screen after the final credits. That was mildly shocking....)
Posted by Orson Scott Card (Member # 209) on :
Heck, all you have to be is ALIVE to get someone to be "shocked and appalled" at your behavior. Someone, somewhere, would hate you for SOMETHING you do. <grin> Mormons are hardly unique in this. There's a very strong social-disapproval gene, and people who think they're tolerant are merely overlooking the things they aren't tolerant of.
I don't watch R-rated movies because they're R-rated. I read about movies in advance, and watch the promos to see what they're selling. I've found PG movies that are deeply offensive to me, and R-rated movies that are morally clear and fine.
There are so many ways to get an R rating, anyway. I don't LIKE bad language, but it doesn't keep me away from an otherwise good movie - I just don't take my mom. And violence - I know that it's all pretend, so I'm not bothered by that, either. You can get an R simply for dealing with issues that would be too disturbing for youngsters - but I'm not a youngster. It's only when a movie is obviously promoting sexual titillation that I simply stay away.
The odd thing is that the R rating doesn't actually make money. Studios would always rather have a PG-13. That's where the money is, and they know it.
Posted by OlavMah (Member # 756) on :
Scott, are you really telling Puppy that he shocks and appalls people just by being alive? He's not *that* bad....
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I'm shocked and appalled that Geoff gave Dark City to you and not me, even though I don't know him personally.
Posted by OlavMah (Member # 756) on :
Yeah, well you can have it if he doesn't want it back.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
HAHAHAHA! I KNEW I remembered buying a copy of Dark City, but I couldn't remember what had happened to it! I've got my own now, so no need to return anything.
One of the reasons the MPAA rating is sort of a shaky standard, in my opinion, is the fact that movies regularly get shot with straight R-rated sensibilities, then get "shaved down" to a PG-13. Much the way we're shaving my game down right now to keep it teen-rated in Japan. The game isn't actually changing in any meaningful way ... there's just a minor difference in the depiction of certain things that fits better with Japanese moral sensibilities.
(I find it hilarious, by the way, that the culture that regularly generates some of the most horrific pornography known to man is ALSO one of the cultures that has the most stringent and well-enforced content standards in the video game industry. I can't count the number of times I've been talking with our publisher, and they said, "That's a GREAT idea! Awesome! Oh, wait ... crap, we can't do that in Japan.")
Anyway, I realize that my second paragraph leads straight into the anti-R-rated-movie argument, "Well, all that shows is that you can't watch most PG-13 movies, either! In fact, pretty much EVERY movie is bad!" That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that the standards used by ratings boards, in general, are not a good indicator of the true moral value of a film. I prefer to use my own standard, which cuts out a lot of non-R movies, and brings in a bunch that ARE rated R.
The line I draw isn't really different, in its general placement, from that of your average Latter-day Saint. It just looks more like the Mexican border than the Canadian border.
Okay, once the bad analogies start flowing, it's time for me to get back to work
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Sweet! Free movie for Jon Boy!
Posted by OlavMah (Member # 756) on :
Where do I send it then?
See, I think a lot of R rated movies are G rated plots with R rated scenes in them. There aren't many plots that necessitate an R rating, though there are some. So I don't think movies with PG rating are more moral, I just think they have better language and fewer graphic scenes of sex and violence. So that's why I don't watch R rated movies, to avoid those scenes. Period.
It doesn't mean I can just turn my brain off and watch whatever. It doesn't mean I can just accept whatever the entertainment industry wants to show me at face value. It just means that in my digging for worthwhile pieces, I have to delve through less filth.
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
Well, I can't really add anything meaningful to this discussion, as I'm not a Mormon--I'm not even religious--but I will say this. For a twenty-five-year-old agnostic, my sensibilities are shockingly conservative. I don't feel I have any soul at stake or deity to disappoint, but I also don't like filling my memory with filth. I'm not saying everything I watch is G-rated, but I also don't go to movies where the only apparent selling point is sex or violence. I have to believe there might be something about the story that I'll care about.
I'm sorry to say I saw American Beauty because a friend told me that it was a deep and beautiful film. Well, we must have been watching a different movie, because the one I saw was trash. He tried to tell me that it was all about symbolism, but that's rubbish. If I despise every character, then I'm not going to care what happens to them, and I'm not going to be interested in symbolism. Story first, symbolism later.
Heck, I was appalled at Sleepless in Seattle. The woman falls in love with a man whose voice she heard on the radio, starts lying to her fiance (who is a good person, so it's not like this is in any way his "comeuppance"), and begins to stalk the man she heard. She even hires a detective to take candid photographs of him! Great love story, my foot.
What I don't do, though, is look at the rating. I don't think the rating actually tells you anything useful. I couldn't tell you what any of the movies I've seen this year were rated, because I honestly don't know. I just watch the trailers, and listen to what people who have seen it say. If, on that basis, I believe this movie might have something for me, I go. If not, I don't.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Hey, Verily, I'm with you on that American Beauty thing. I didn't get the point of it at all.
Unlike Puppy, I can't watch many movies that portray great evil - I'm too affected by them. I know that for me, there are certain types of movies that I should never ever watch. It doesn't matter that they don't affect the vast majority of the rest of the population, it only matters that they affect me. Like Poltergeist (yes, yes, feel free to laugh), or White Noise, or The Shining - those affect me profoundly, and not in a good way. I get nightmares easily, and yes, I'm even scared of the dark, despite being old. I get freaked out easily.
This, I think, is a part of the spirit of the law. Know what your own boundaries and sensibilities are, and be sensitive to them.
Posted by Treason (Member # 7587) on :
quote:
OSC said: There are so many ways to get an R rating, anyway. I don't LIKE bad language, but it doesn't keep me away from an otherwise good movie - I just don't take my mom. And violence - I know that it's all pretend, so I'm not bothered by that, either. You can get an R simply for dealing with issues that would be too disturbing for youngsters - but I'm not a youngster. It's only when a movie is obviously promoting sexual titillation that I simply stay away.
quote:
Not to be disrespectful but... I'm curious to know why you know the violence is pretend, but can't think the same about the sex. Why is one so much worse than the other? There are some very funny/good movies out there that have a lot of sex in them. Why stay away?
Posted by CRash (Member # 7754) on :
quote: The basic mission of the rating system is a simple one: to offer to parents some advance information about movies so that parents can decide what movies they want their children to see or not to see. The entire rostrum of the rating program rests on the assumption of responsibility by parents. If parents don't care, or if they are languid in guiding their children's moviegoing, the rating system becomes useless. Indeed, if you are 18 or over, or if you have no children, the rating system has no meaning for you. Ratings are meant for parents, no one else.
That being the case, I agree with others that to decline to see a movie simply because of its rating is a result of not bothering to be more informed. Content and themes vary from movie to movie.
Posted by jamesbond007 (Member # 8513) on :
quote:Not to be disrespectful but... I'm curious to know why you know the violence is pretend, but can't think the same about the sex. Why is one so much worse than the other? There are some very funny/good movies out there that have a lot of sex in them. Why stay away?
That's a good point. It brings back the Matrix. I noticed I thought it a cleaner 'R' movie than most. There was alot of violence but no sex (in the fist installment) --I actually think it is because in general violence in art is perceived as not as bad as snogging (thx JK Rowling)
I find sex in family atmospheres to be terribly uncomfortable and violence more tolerable.
--Maybe because most people after seeing a violent movie likely won't go assualt a nearby victim, but would more likely get into trouble from snogging after seeing a movie with sexual content. Just a thought...
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
I remember someone saying (Puppy? I think it was you - in the context of computer games) that the difference is that seeing violence does not tend to give rise to violent tendencies in a person, while seeing a sexual act will give rise to sexual titillation.
Personally, I think the concept of which is worse is rubbish.
I think the far greater danger is people being desensitised to violence through watching it in movies, playing it in games and its glamorisation through music and popular culture. I believe violence is inherently more destructive to society than sex could ever be.
Mind you, I realise my view of sex is different to that of the LDS church.
Posted by rjzeller (Member # 8536) on :
quote: The odd thing is that the R rating doesn't actually make money. Studios would always rather have a PG-13. That's where the money is, and they know it.
YES!!!!! Finally someone who agrees with me on this. I've been flamed on countless other boards for making this point -- R rated movies are NOT the breadmakers. Of the top ten all-time domestic films (box office), only ONE had an R rating -- Passion of the Christ. No sex.
I think it's important to remember there is a line between adults and children, here. An adult can easily grasp the nature of violence on screne vs. reality, and generally it does not affect them. A child, however, can be greatly influenced by violence on screen.
Sexual provocation, however, is the opposite. As we get older we are more susceptible to sexual influences. It's because we find violence so apalling that we can witness it on screen and shun it in our daily lives. But porn or nudity or sexual scenes are different -- despite our conscious decision to shun and disdain it, we are nevertheless moved by it. It grabs our senses and takes root becuase instinctively we are drawn to it.
It is this inborn desire that causes sexual material to be far more insidious -- becuase while we choose to shun it an convince ourselves we are repulsed by it, it nevertheless caters to more base instincts within us.
When we witness a violent event, we are apalled. Even if we become "Desensitized" to it, we still have an acute understanding of the wrongfullness of it and the threats it presents. Think about the planes flying into the WTC towers, visualize in your minds the moment of impact, the explosion, the though of people sitting innocently at their desks when suddenly their entire world erupts into a blazing inferno. Many of us here will not be able to do that, a few will. And those who do will likely be apalled by it.
Now watch a movie like "Con Air" or "Die Hard II" and suddenly the emotion is different. Why? Because as Card says, we know it's not real.
But nudity and sex are always real. If you see a woman naked on screen, it's real. Even if you can't touch her or communicate with her, she's real. And what's worse, is even though we may be apalled by it, it nevertheless caters to a base instinct in each of us. We may be upset by it, but there is a part in each of us that will find it intriguing or arousing. When those emotions are fostered, they take over our minds and can corrupt our thinking. They stay with us, and grow.
I think the view that violence is worse than sex is yet another tool of the adversary to lead us carefully astray. We almost always see violence for what it is, but all too often see sex as "innocent" or "pure" or "natural" and approve of it becuase it SEEMS so much less threatening than violence.
It's a Trojan horse, don't be fooled into thinking otherwise.
Z
[ August 24, 2005, 12:15 PM: Message edited by: rjzeller ]
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
quote:Originally posted by jamesbond007: I find sex in family atmospheres to be terribly uncomfortable and violence more tolerable.
I think most emotionally healthy people agree. After all, it's perfectly normal for well-adjusted 7-year-olds to pretend to shoot each other (playing cops & robbers, emulating Star Wars, or whatever). This is normal even in household where the parents lean pacifistic by not giving their kids toy guns -- the kids just use their index fingers instead. Nobody with their priorities straight is particularly disturbed by this kind of harmless play-acting.
Now, if you have 7-year-olds engaging in simulated sex, there is most definitely something wrong. In fact, that act alone would constitute reason to suspect that the child might be a victim of sexual abuse.
Feigned violence is normal behavior for small kids; feigned sex is not. Therefore it is not unreasonable to extrapolate that exposure to some kinds of make-believe violence are okay for kids, while that is not necessarily true for make-believe sex acts.
Posted by Treason (Member # 7587) on :
Said by Irregardless:
quote:
Now, if you have 7-year-olds engaging in simulated sex, there is most definitely something wrong. In fact, that act alone would constitute reason to suspect that the child might be a victim of sexual abuse.
quote:
To some of us in America and a few other places, maybe. Not to me, and not to many other cultures out there. I was playing "sex games" with my girl friends when I was 6 and 7 and I was not abused. It is a very natural thing to do.
As for adults being "titillated" by sexual content in a movie: I say, so what? If you have any willpower or control over yourself at all, you'll be fine, I wouldn't worry.
Posted by OlavMah (Member # 756) on :
Even though I'm an adult, I think I'm still susceptible to being desensitized by violence in films. The argument that "it's not real" doesn't work for me. Sure, fiction isn't real, but isn't it supposed to say something about reality? Even on a very very basic level? Why is the portrayal of violence okay just because "it isn't real"? That's like saying that I'm going to tell a story about hitting you in the face and causing you pain, and I'm going to find that really really funny, and yet I'm not being insensitive because "it isn't real".
I'm not particularly concerned about being tintillated by onscreen sex, because to me it's not real. Sex is way more than the physical act, and watching the physical act is... not the same. I actually find it rather dull, given it involves fictional characters or random famous people that I don't know, depending on how you look at it.
My main issue with both of these things is that they are a waste of my time, IMO, and yeild me little or no benefit. I just didn't realize what a waste of time they were until I went without for a few months. I may miss some good movies by not watching anything rated R, but I never thought I'd see every great movie ever produced anyway. I'll miss some of the world's best movies regardless of how many I watch because I'm only human and only have so many hours in a day and only speak one language, etc. etc.
So, the MPAA ratings might not mean much about the moral content (to me, that goes without saying), but they are a pretty straightforward filter of violence, language, and sex. Works for me. If there's an R rated movie I really want to see, I'll watch it when it's on network TV, or get an edited version. The edited version is not the same, but it gives me an indication of whether it needs to be seen in its original form in order to be understood, and if it really is one of the world's great movies and needs those R rated scenes, I'd consider watching the R version. So far, this dilemma hasn't come up.
[ August 24, 2005, 04:44 PM: Message edited by: OlavMah ]
Posted by Sartorius (Member # 7696) on :
quote:Originally posted by rjzeller: YES!!!!! Finally someone who agrees with me on this. I've been flamed on countless other boards for making this point -- R rated movies are NOT the breadmakers. Of the top ten all-time domestic films (box office), only ONE had an R rating -- Passion of the Christ. No sex.
Why would anyone bother to flame you over that? Were they LDS boards?
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
I didn't see terminator 3, though I badly wanted to. In that one instance, I figure it's kind of like paying more than 2.53 in fast offering.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
A couple of things to point out. The LDS church's view on Rated R films only applies to the United States as those ratings are only given out in the United States. The LDS church exists worldwide.
How do you know what to watch and not watch in Mexico?
Also there are UNRATED versions of films which are WORSE than the "R" Rated versions. There are also films which have chosen to NOT submit to the MPAA. Some are TV shows or documentaries and some are pornography.
You use your common sense (or spirit if you are so inclined)
Also on the Violence vs. Sex theme.
Violence on screen is "simulated".
Nudity on screen is NOT except in rare circumstances. SEX may be simulated and depending on the purpose of the filmmaker, it may even be promoting sex in an unhealthy way (spiritually).
This is why if you portrayed a Married LDS couple having sex, LDS people would still NOT see it because it's not about the "right or wrong" of what's being portrayed, it's that you don't need to see that happening.
It's the same with violence. I don't need to be victimized by a film and pay for it as well.
That said, I do watch some "R" Rated films. In fact some of my favorite are The Green Mile and Shawshank Redemption, Saving Private Ryan, etc. etc. With Green Mile and Shawshank the POSITIVE feeling the films give the viewer outweigh the small needed instances of BAD.
My council would be to USE JUDGEMENT and KNOW YOUR WEAKNESSES when selecting films.
Posted by OlavMah (Member # 756) on :
Well this will sound willful and even, dare I say, independent minded, but I don't give a flip what your counsel is. If you've got an insight into the advice that church leaders give, then cool. But I don't recognize you as an ecclesiastical authority.
Posted by gr8fulreader (Member # 8538) on :
oh, gosh darn, rated-shmated, blah blah! Let me begin by issuing a disclaimer: I would never advocate any porno materials, because that is not art. But bad movies aren't art either. Good movies are, rating notwithstanding. Art is a slice of real life in which artist(s) crystallizes a certain vision of human life, certain experiences that may not be available to you, the viewer, first hand. Like a car chase. I never experienced a car chase (driving in NY taxi cab comes close, but still...) and I hope I never will. I am afraid of anything that moves past 60 miles/hr with me in it. But in the movie theater I will enjoy it, because - guess what? - I am safe in my sit and pretty still. So why shouldn't I see an R-rated movie? Or Non-rated movie? I saw Requiem for a dream - non-rated masterpiece, brutal in its honesty and human drama - that spared me going to drag detox centers to see what addicts go thru...Something I would never do just because it did not ever cross my mind...I recommend that movie to all adolesents/teenagers to see that movie! It must be a must-see in all the drag prevention programs! Oh, well, that had a few sex scenes...maybe it could make the point without them, but frankly they are a background for the focus of the movie: how drags destroy human lives. I pick and choose movies depending on content. I would not go see Hotel Rwanda, I've heard and saw enough about it in the new, NPR and PBS. (Ramsfeld and Condi should go see it! But I digress...) So why would a well balanced intellectual close a door on good 30-40-50% of the cultural events? Why live in a self-imposed ivory tower? anywaythese are just my 5c.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
You have an interesting, eccentric, narrow definition of "art"
Posted by BryanP (Member # 7772) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orson Scott Card:There are so many ways to get an R rating, anyway. I don't LIKE bad language, but it doesn't keep me away from an otherwise good movie - I just don't take my mom. And violence - I know that it's all pretend, so I'm not bothered by that, either. You can get an R simply for dealing with issues that would be too disturbing for youngsters - but I'm not a youngster. It's only when a movie is obviously promoting sexual titillation that I simply stay away.
I don't mean to pick on OSC's post in particular, but I skipped ahead to read it and it exemplifies perfectly an ideal that seems totally ass-backwards to me.
Why is it that violence is okay, but not sex? Why can we see blood and gore, heads being chopped off, limbs exploding, but breasts are horrifying? This attitude seems quite prevalent in American society today, and I do not understand it.
If anything, it seems to me that it should be reversed. I mean, at least sex is a natural act that can be considered a "good" far more than violence can. And yet it is tolerated far less in our society, especially in film.
Here's an example. Take Kill Bill and Eyes Wide Shut. Now, Kill Bill was excessively violently gratuitous, that is, it had far more violence than was necessary to tell the story. Despite the excess, it was rated R. Now, Eyes Wide Shut, a film with a good amount of nudity but no violence was rated NC-17, until WB was forced to trim a bit of it to garner an R rating. Both had comparable amounts of language, etc, the difference is that the nudity in Eyes was not gratuitous, but necessary to tell the story (or at least much more so than the violence in Kill Bill). But because it had sex, which is evil, and not violence, which is okay, it got slammed with an NC-17.
I'm not condoning sex in films more than violence, I think both can be used either in good taste or poor, but the idea that somehow violence is okay but sex is bad strikes me as totally backwards.
Edit: So I went back and read the thread, and one person indicated that sex scenes in movies were somehow "threatening", moreso than violence. As someone else said, if you have self-control, it wouldn't be a problem. Sex IS more natural than violence, and I just don't understand how it is more sinful to have it in a film than violence.
[ August 25, 2005, 01:34 AM: Message edited by: BryanP ]
Posted by Treason (Member # 7587) on :
Eyes Wide Shut should have been rated, "UC" for utter crap!
You should read all the posts, though. We did discuss this before, although I did not get an answer that was satisfactory to me.
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
quote:Am I the only one to whom this seems messed up?
No, but at least read the rest of the thread. It has been brought up and discussed.
Posted by BryanP (Member # 7772) on :
Sorry, guys. I went back to read the thread and edited my post a bit.
Posted by Treason (Member # 7587) on :
S'ok.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:Sex IS more natural than violence, and I just don't understand how it is more sinful to have it in a film than violence.
That's actually the point. Sex is more natural, less obviously harmful, and much easier to insidiously corrupt in the minds of young viewers than violence is.
I mean, we all know instinctively, or through very early experience, that smacking someone HURTS, and that shooting them HURTS MORE. Seeing violent imagery doesn't change that.
We DON'T all know instinctively that treating sex casually or callously hurts people. It's something that many people learn the hard way. Oversexualizing our media, and relaying harmful messages about sex, has much more potential to do harm by convincing people that their sexual actions should have unrealistic consequences ... or by simply making sexuality such a focus that people generally lose perspective about it ... than violent imagery ever could.
Posted by Kit the Odd (Member # 4975) on :
I think this has been mentioned before, but our reactions to sex and violonce are different. Sex is pleasurable, violence is painful. The first thought when we see someone hurt is "Ouch", the first thought when we see sexual things is interest or desire.
The problem is that we, as viewers, identify with the characters on screen. However, violence is not something we naturally desire to be part of (at least most of us). Sex is something that we have an ingrained desire for.
Needles in apples are more dangerous than razor blades in utility knives because more people eat apples than misuse utility knives. It is not a matter of which one is more dangerous, it is a matter of which one is more enticing and less likely to cause caution.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote: We DON'T all know instinctively that treating sex casually or callously hurts people. It's something that many people learn the hard way. Oversexualizing our media, and relaying harmful messages about sex, has much more potential to do harm by convincing people that their sexual actions should have unrealistic consequences ... or by simply making sexuality such a focus that people generally lose perspective about it ... than violent imagery ever could.
I agree and disagree with you in equal parts.
I think oversexualising of society is a big problem. I think a culture that makes 9 year olds want to dress "sexy" has some serious problems. But I also think a culture which has gang violence as a reality in far too many cities has some serious problems.
I see no problems with adults being sexually titillated. And, as I said before, I know this is not necessarily a religous viewpoint. I do not think pre-marital sex is necessarily a bad thing. I think it can be, for sure. But I believe it can also be a healthy and legitimate expression of a relationship.
I guess what I'm saying is yes, Puppy I agree. Sex in the media and the movies goes too far. But so does violence. And pretending that seeing/playing/pretending violence doesn't impact some people, even if you are unaffected, is the same as me pretending sexual pressures in society and popular culture don't contribute to teenagers having sex.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
The thing is, DOING violence is often pleasurable (due to fight-or-flight adrenal causes)... How often do you actually identify with the guy being blown to bits, as opposed to the hero doing the violence? In fact, a cliche is to have a minor "good guy" be killed, after establishing them as a bit sympathetic (but not too much, or people get turned off), in order to set up the hero's vengeance murder spree.
Sex and violence have different roots in our psyche, and I can understand differentiating on that, given a deeper analysis.
-Bok
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote:but I don't give a flip what your counsel is.
That's fine. It's just my opinion and suggestion. It's true for me. It may be false to you. If someone points out a pitfall in front of you that you can't see, you have every right to walk into it...but don't say I didn't warn ya!
This is the official position of the church with regards to the youth. The YOUTH. There is no mention of "R" ratings. I choose to follow this.
quote:Media: Movies, Television, Radio, Videocassettes, Books, and Magazines Our Heavenly Father has counseled us as Latter-day Saints to seek after "anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy" (Articles of Faith 1:13). Whatever you read, listen to, or watch makes an impression on you. Public entertainment and the media can provide you with much positive experience. They can uplift and inspire you, teach you good and moral principles, and bring you closer to the beauty this world offers. But they can also make what is wrong and evil look normal, exciting, and acceptable. Pornography is especially dangerous and addictive. Curious exploration of pornography can become a controlling habit leading to coarser material and to sexual transgression. If you continue to view pornography, your spirit will become desensitized, and your conscience will erode. Much harm comes from reading or viewing pornography. It causes thoughts within you that weaken your self-discipline.
Don't attend or participate in any form of entertainment, including concerts, movies, and videocassettes, that is vulgar, immoral, inappropriate, suggestive, or pornographic in any way. Movie ratings do not always accurately reflect offensive content. Don't be afraid to walk out of a movie, turn off a television set, or change a radio station if what's being presented does not meet your Heavenly Father's standards. And do not read books or magazines or look at pictures that are pornographic or that present immorality as acceptable.
In short, if you have any question about whether a particular movie, book, or other form of entertainment is appropriate, don't see it, don't read it, don't participate.
Posted by OlavMah (Member # 756) on :
Yeah well, I won't blame you any more than I'll rely on you. The For Strength of Youth Pamphlet is, in my opinion (not "counsel") a good read even if you're not youth. There's also a section on the church website under Gospel Library that has a collection of talks on media. There's a lot of worthwhile counsel out there.
And I've got a youth oriented calling, so I see no reason to differentiate my standards from theirs. My choice, again.
Posted by RunningBear (Member # 8477) on :
I am going to jump into the middle of something, and Im not sure what it is but here I go.
. My personal views on sex vs. violence in movies has to do with one thing: context. Kill Bill was in my opinion a really awful movie. It overdid the violence and was just plain twisted in my opinion. However many war movies have extreme amounts of violence, but it is appropriate. Take We Were Soldiers for instance, it was a violent bloody movie, but it was the truth, anything else would not have been accurate and the movie would not have had its impact, for the Vietnam War was violent and bloody. . On the other hand, sex or nudity in films is easily overdone, it is not difficult to turn something sweet into something extreme. Sex is not necessary for a storyline while violence may be. Take any of the recent teen movies (by this I mean American Pie, or etc.), these are all full of pointless and gratuitous sex. And this is what makes these movies utterly stupid in my opinion. I am in the age group which is commonly considered Young Adults (13-23, im not telling you exactly what, I still want some respect), and I am male. Therefore I should be obsessive about the female form and my mind should be full of indecent thoughts. It is not, I know, I live there and I think these movies (themed on violence or sex) are tailored to people who just want to get off in one way or another.
. I dont think there is anything wrong with some R movies but as Benjamin Franklin once said "moderation in all things" and without that even a PG-13 movie can be made gratuitously violent or sex-based. No religion can be made to say one form of thing is all bad (excluding the obvious like murder, genocide, liberal views... just kidding, about liberals, not about the murder and genocide) and this brings me to my conclusion. Mr. Card is doing nothing wrong by writing about any movie, anyone who says otherwise is an idiot, and I'm not apologizing for that, for learning about a movie wont hurt you spiritually or otherwise, it will merely teach you and expand your consciousness. This will give you truth!
AND THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Unfortunately I think the idea that sex is more natural than violence isn't really borne out by interacting with people.
It's certainly not borne out by a casual look at history and even though most people in the 'First World' certainly make more love than violence in their daily lives...they're watching the latter almost constantly. Football, rugby, Ultime Fighting Championship, boxing, hockey, television, radio, movies, video games...
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Benjamin Franklin saying, "Moderation in all things," is funny.
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: When the church preaches against seeing 'R' movies and anything resembling pornography (titilating - as R movies often are *note this carefully).
I believe that official church policy on this is slightly more flexible than you may have understood.
Unfortunately, not all local church officials see it the way you do.
I am not currently active in the church, but I well remember when I was, and there was a High Council speaker in a sacrament meeting one Sunday who addressed this issue. He repeated that the prophet has counseled that the members should not see R-rated films (and he did say all members, not just young men or any other more limited group within the church), then added the old saying that "Once the prophet has spoken, the thinking has been done." Clearly, his intent was to tell the members that "good Mormons" do not see R-rated movies, ever.
Obviously, that was his own interpretation of that counsel, but in his role as a member of the High Council his words would tend to send the message to members that he was passing on official policy, not an advisory opinion.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Discouraging people from thinking has got to be a bad thing!
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
quote:then added the old saying that "Once the prophet has spoken, the thinking has been done."
Of course, I'm sure he didn't mention that this saying came from a long-ago "ward teaching message" that was pronounced incorrect by the President of the Church shortly after it was published.
It's really trying when Latter-Day Saints like the speaker to whom littlemissattitude refers understand so little about our own doctrine.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Thanks for the link! I had to wonder if that was accurate.
Posted by Treason (Member # 7587) on :
That was horrifying for a moment!
Posted by CORPSE-A-TRON (Member # 8560) on :
This topic is non-stop in LDS culture, I find. Considering that we all have our own agency to account for, it's a matter of personal choice, really. However, every choice, good or bad, has consequences that we may or may not see right away. The President of the Church and the General Authorities were put at the head of the LDS church for a reason and I think it completely in our best interest to follow their counsel. Of course, whether we do or not is a personal choice we'll have to stand before Christ and give an account of. So, OSC, though "Mormon" will be responsible for what OSC does. No one should try to use someone elses example as a cover for their own choices. We won't be able to point to someone else and say, "His example made me do it" when we've been properly counseled by the Lord's appointed leaders. Personal agency, it's a wonderful thing. Personally, I don't like OSC's choice to review or view R-rated material, nor do I like that he chose to write swear words in his "Ender" series. But again, it's his choice and it's our choice to read it or not, to see it or not. As for movies that're inappropriate, those cover a wide range of what's out there. Some are unrated and they're worse than R-rated. Does that mean if it's not rated, it's okay? Hardly. The guidlines in the Church are crystal clear, for anyone who doesn't want to rationlize themselves into a corner. GA's gave us general counsel because it's a general type of subject. The fact that they don't get specific in this is because it's our choice. They could, but they don't. I'm thankful they still leave a lot to our own investigation. They don't try to control our lives, but they're authorized to counsel and guide and to uphold the laws of the Lord's Church here on earth. I think it would be fool-hardy to ignore such advice even if the masses elect to watch "Passion" or "Saving Private Ryan". We don't need to see "Passion" to gain a better understanding of what Christ went through or to gain a deeper testimony through it-since such a testimony can only come through the Spirit and not a screenplay. We don't need to see "Saving Private Ryan" to gather a greater appreciation for the sacrifices our brethren made in WW2. A great example of a good way to portray WW2 is "Saints And Soldiers". There's no need for R-rated material. Not necessary at all. Besides, content doesn't become okay when there's 10 good things in it and one bad. You wouldn't want to eat brownies made of the best chocolate in the world if it were mixed in with the best manure, would you?! Could OSC refrain from viewing R-rated movies, even the heavily edited R movies? Sure. Could he refrain from using profanity in his novels? Sure. But it's all his choice-not ours, whatever they may be. :-) Having said all of this... *pause for breath* I think OSC's an awesome writer! If he weren't, I wouldn't read his books. I much prefer his work than anything Robert Jordan writes!
I'm done now.... sorry.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
quote:A great example of a good way to portray WW2 is "Saints And Soldiers". There's no need for R-rated material. Not necessary at all.
Saints and Soldiers WAS rated R, originally. The unrated cut I saw (before they submitted it to the MPAA) wasn't in any way immoral or objectionable. But the MPAA apparently took issue with some of the horrific story elements that weighed on the characters' minds, and rated it R, as a film intended for adults.
The filmmakers contested the ruling, made a couple of vanishingly minor changes to appease the MPAA, and then received a PG-13. The movie didn't change in any substantial way.
OSC loves Saints and Soldiers, and he loves Saving Private Ryan. Both are essentially R-rated movies that deal with the horrific realities of war in an adult way, and are not intended for children. I don't think that the minor adjustments made to Saints and Soldiers that let it scrape by with a PG-13 automatically make it morally superior to Saving Private Ryan. The two movies are different in a lot of ways, but I have to say that that particular distinction, in this case, is completely irrelevant.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Sex IS more natural than violence, and I just don't understand how it is more sinful to have it in a film than violence.
I'm sorry, what? And people are AGREEING WITH THIS? You must have missed biology in high school, or have serious religious reasons for disregarding it, because violence is DEFINITELY as natural as sex according to pretty much any published textbook in existence.
I forgot to nab the portion of someone's post that mentioned revulsion at simulated sex amongst children, and the accompanying reply, but there's another point: sexual play among children is definitely instinctive. Babies and toddlers engage in what is essentially masturbation fairly often. How many people can honestly claim they never played "doctor" with the neighbor's kid, or had a show-you-mine-show-me-yours moment? I'm betting the number's pretty small, unless your parents actually began indoctrinating you or closely monitoring your free time from an extraordinarily young age.
Asimov's The Robot's of Dawn offers a pretty interesting look at a society where sex has been completely desensitized, where it's not quite on par with breathing but approaching a level of casualness that would undoubtedly be termed slutty in our society. Sex is purely a social device, because contraception has been perfected, and as a result the social constraints behind sex are gone. Children regularly engage in sexual activity, and older children are expected to help teach them. Incest is a completely foreign concept, and any man having sex with a woman appropriately younger than him might be sleeping with his daughter, but no one cares.
It's an interesting (and, I feel, plausible) look at what would happen if we took sex in stride: the artificial constraints we place on ourselves disappear.
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
I don't perceive that something being 'natural' has anything to do with its suitability as entertainment. Vomiting and defecation are perfectly natural processes, but I don't want to watch movies of them.
Posted by CORPSE-A-TRON (Member # 8560) on :
I agree with using judgment. However, I know the Church's guidlines about inappropriate material are so crystal clear that anyone wondering about it would know exactly what they shouldn't view or listen to or do. It's simple. The Gospel isn't complex and neither is the Lord's Church. We have guidlines that incompas ALL forums of entertainment which applies to all countries and peoples. The counsel is the same on the general level. I stand by what I said about intent. It's not made right by one or two things that're good in a movie. And one thing, no matter how horrible and evil, will have the desired effect on our souls. I've seen enough R-rated movies to know that the Spirit doesn't approve of them. I also know that if the Spirit doesn't approve, then it's a fair conclusion that the Lord doesn't either. But again, personal agency is just that, personal and I agree with CStroman. I will state also, that voilence, simulated or not, has an effect. Whether we're personally involved in it or just viewing, it still has an impact. Everything that happens in our lives has an effect. And in the next life, we'll see that more clearly.
Posted by CORPSE-A-TRON (Member # 8560) on :
To Rat, I'm not exactly up-to-date with the past of that movie as far as the ratings go, but I was merely trying to point out that the difference in the movies is quite striking. I've seen "Saving Private Ryan", regrettably. Personally, I'd prefer the "gore" in "Sants and Soldiers" to seeing the amount of gore that's contained in the first ten minutes of "Saving Private Ryan". It wasn't due to a "weak stomach" on my part, but the illness I had was mostly spiritual. I felt more degraded watching "Saving Private Ryan" than I did with "Saints and Soldiers". The cursing was another factor. When we pay to see something we know has that level of gore and cursing, isn't it as though we approve of it? In our personal lives, we can't control what people say or do, but we can control what we pay to see and do. Ah, anyway, I don't really want to step on people's toes. It's personal choice, that's the bottom line. :-)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I've seen enough R-rated movies to know that the Spirit doesn't approve of them
You've seen enough R-rated movies to know that the Spirit doesn't approve of any R-rated movies? Or just the ones you've seen?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It may be that watching R-rated movies brings him close enough to the Spirit to know what the Spirit wants.
Posted by CORPSE-A-TRON (Member # 8560) on :
Do you honestly think the Spirit would approve of any R-rated material? I doubt it. Out of the R's that I've seen there wasn't one that didn't offend the spirit. Not just R's either, a lot of PG's as well. *Shrug* But like I said, personal choice. If you disagree, that's fine. :-) My choice is clear and I don't mind what other people do-as far as viewing R movies goes. :-)
Posted by CORPSE-A-TRON (Member # 8560) on :
Ah, thanks, Tom. :-)
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:I've seen enough R-rated movies to know that the Spirit doesn't approve of them.
I would be very wary of making declarations about what the Spirit does and does not approve of. There's a reason why all members are blessed with the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
[this is A Rat Named Dog's other name]
My name is Dog
And I second Jon Boy's point. There's also a reason why we are counseled not to broadcast our personal spiritual experiences. It is far too common for one person to feel inspired to do one thing, while another person feels inspired to do another. Claiming that YOUR inspiration says that GOD wants THIS opens up the door for a level of conflict that isn't healthy in any ward.
Posted by CORPSE-A-TRON (Member # 8560) on :
Okay, I understand where you're coming from. As for speaking about what I think the Spirit wants, it's mostly in first-person, not to be confused for comment about other's experiences. What I feel the Spirit wants me to do is what it wants ME to do. Maybe someone feels that's different for them, which seems to be the case. I can't speak for anyone else, really. Just stating opinion and belief. Like I said, didn't want to step on anyone's toes.
IdahoEE, "simply putting your faith in the MPAA is not a wise thing to do"-that's PRECISELY why I don't care for critics! Individual opinion is very important. Thanks. :-)
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
I like the idea that we are suppose to figure things out on our own when we can. So here goes my attempt.
My whole "media belief system" is that my soul will not be damaged by what is portrayed in a movie, but HOW it is portrayed. Movies are visual and audio rhetoric. The method of depiction will determine what the viewer thinks about it. Good things can be presented as distasteful, and bad things as tasteful.
I think the argument about sex vs violence in this thread is crippled by the fact that sex is almost always glamorized, but violence isn't. When violence is glamorized, of course it is as bad/worse as glamorized sex.
I think the depiction of violence is a double edged sword. Depict it palatably (TV violence) will induce de-sensitivity to it. Depict it as disturbing as possible and it then become abusive to the viewer. And there is another way to depict it so that it appeals to our worst desires, obsession with death. Horror flicks certainly fall in this category. It is a form of arousal.
Saving Private Ryan used camera techniques that are visually jarring, sudden camera movement, and shutter tricks that just make it disturbing to watch. Then throw in the images of flesh flying through the air and the exploding audio track. This was to make it seem more real. But was it?
The reaction you get in the theatre is nothing like what you would feel if you were actually at the battle. Adrenaline is a wonderful drug produced by the body in times of distress that helps us cope, but my body wasn't producing any when I watched the film. Wasn't what happened in the war bad on the soldiers? And now we are subjecting ourselves to the similar feelings so that we can "understand" what they went through? Are we supermen now and we can withstand the traumatic feelings and not need to go see the shrink afterwards? I didn't like SPR as you can tell, mainly because I think it put one foot over the line and glamorized the gore it depicted. And I have gotten the impression they did it because they were showing off new filming techniques, not because it really helped the story in any way.
Now sex. Sex is portrayed in a way to arouse the viewer. Playboy is defined by the "golden glow." In real life, you will never see a female that looks like what you will find in the pages of Playboy magazine. The images are concocted to arouse you and are not intended to show anything resembling reality. The entire entertainment and most of the advertising/marketing industries uses sex to arouse the viewer.
This arousal is a bonding experience. Bond to who? Models, clerks who sell porn, other people in the movie theatre, the movie stars, the products being marketed, etc. I'd like to blame high divorce on this but I'm afraid I'll get flamed for it. (and I'd probably be wrong)
Now the other angle.
I've seen nudity (and simulated sex) that doesn't arouse. James Christensen's nude fairy paintings are perfect examples. He paints the most beautiful women, most of them nude, but they seem very chaste to me... I've seen a few movies (mostly foreign) that are similar. These depictions are very rare though.
And a rant. Public breast feeding is legal and protected. Yet stories pop up of public stores kicking out mothers who breast feed. Some people wonder why such a normal thing is so abhorred. I think that the over-sexualization of sex and nudity has led to the extreme belief that sex and nudity is "a sin in every form." This can become a real problem when people get married.
And back to violence. I remember watching The Usual Suspects at a time in my life when people in my life were doing very bad things and getting away with it and hurting me in the process and I didn't have anyone I could talk about it with, so I was in a bad state. All I remember about the film is that they swore every other word, and that the evil the movie portrayed was "exactly like what was happening in my life" (not really, but it felt that way). It helped me cope a lot. No G movie would have ever helped me cope like that. To stand up to evil, the movie has to depict evil, and its presence will make the ratings worse.
I would not see The Usual Suspects now though because I'm so far from those bad times that watching it now would be so uncomfortable. But on the same hand, I never got the feeling that the evil portrayed in the movie was "good" or glamorized. I felt the movie showed it for what it was: evil. So I could probably sit through the film again without complaining. But I would rather watch a Ghibli animation.
As for Card reviewing R movies. We trust the MPAA to give good ratings, to make sure PG-13 is always chaste? Ha ha. We actually need people we trust like Card who are willing to risk watching crude and warn us, and at the same time, find Pearls and pointing them out. I still remember Card's comment on Hell Boy: "I'd rather watch names erode off tombstones".
Posted by RunningBear (Member # 8477) on :
I concur
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Adrenaline is a wonderful drug produced by the body in times of distress that helps us cope, but my body wasn't producing any when I watched the film.
You may have already been desensitized, actually. During many of the scenes in question -- through which I sat mostly impassively -- my wife was shaking with visceral terror. She made it through the film (by her own request), but was weeping when we left.
Posted by RunningBear (Member # 8477) on :
Is desensitizing bad?
That is what they do when someone has an extreme phobia.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
I have to say and anyone can doubt this if they want. I have felt the "spirit" while watching a few select R-Rated films. You may doubt it, but I believe it.
Let me put it this way, if you a bible story/quote in an issue of Playboy, yes reading the playboy would drive the spirit away, but if you were to read only the bible quotes, would you feel the spirit?
The R-Rated films I saw that had moments where I felt the spirit are pretty much ones where the characters overcome great adversity and I feel it at the end.
If you want direct movies, you won't get them from me.
Posted by Treason (Member # 7587) on :
Tom said "You may have already been desensitized, actually. During many of the scenes in question -- through which I sat mostly impassively -- my wife was shaking with visceral terror. She made it through the film (by her own request), but was weeping when we left."
Yeah. I love violent movies usually so I should be desensitized but after the first 15 minutes of that one I was crying and almost threw up. (out of extreme distress, not the "yuck" factor.) I watched it all though. I thought it was important.
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
"You may have already been desensitized, actually."
That isn't what I meant at all. I meant adrenaline helps people in battle cope with the harshness. I wasn't feeling any. I was experiencing the full force of death and destruction, even though it was all fake, didn't lessen how I felt. I don't remember if I was actually flinching during the scenes but I remember physically responding somehow.
And again, I know from camera people that the movie used jarring camera tricks. You know how strobe lights cause some people to get sick? Tricks like that.
It wasn't just what was being depicted, it was HOW it was depicted.
It was a lot to ask from an audience. And I didn't get anything back from the movie. By the end, the story meant absolutely nothing to me. Guys can be raped, right? Well, I felt emotionally raped. I suppose if the movie meant something to me, I would have tolerated what was done to me.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I meant adrenaline helps people in battle cope with the harshness. I wasn't feeling any.
Then, as I said, you may have been desensitized. My wife quite clearly exhibited the "flight or fight" response elicited by adrenaline.
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
I'm not understanding you. Either way, I'm probably wrong. I'm not a doctor or pharmasist and didn't do well in Biology or Chemistry. All I'm saying is that the movie *does* something to viewers in the name of letting them know what the war was like but that is pure garbage because putting us through physical trauma hardly comes close to letting us know what war is like. It does let us know what physical trauma is like though, and in that way it does teach us what war was like in that sense.
I can see now if I had gotten something meaningful from the movie I probably would have counted it worth it. I did get something from Usual Suspects. That movie wasn't *better* in terms of abuse to the audience. I just got something out of it. I'm not saying people didn't get anything from Saving Private Ryan. I didn't. So for me the movie wasn't worth it. I would count this among the movies I shouldn't have seen.
I wouldn't recommend anyone go see Usual Suspects either. I doubt it would be beneficial to most people. And I wouldn't see it now because I doubt it would benefit me now.
So you can see I'm really talking in circles. I think it is up to the person to decide what they can handle and what they can't. I think it is important that they find someone they can trust to review movies so that they can get a gauge on the quality of a movie before actually seeing it.
Posted by Therese (Member # 8579) on :
I've skimmed most of the posts here, and while I don't think we should entirely eliminate sex and violence from movies, it really annoys me when it just gets stuck in there. Did anyone see Sideways? It was nominated/won awards, so I rented it. Biggest mistake I ever made. The movie was disgusting, crass, and generally nasty. Then again, the movie had no plot at all, so maybe the sex was necessary to fill up enough time to constitute a movie.
I don't think many people are actually aroused by the sexual scenes we see in R rated movies. I'm far more concerned about the attitude towards casual sex these scenes promote. Whether the movie cuts to black or shows figures wriggling under some blankets doesn't matter so much as the idea that it's ok to jump in bed with whomever, whenever.
I doubt that God is going to damn anyone to hell for watching an R rated movie, especially if the purpose was to critique it, and not to... titillate oneself.
Posted by Treason (Member # 7587) on :
You know, you all may think I am the weirdest and most screwed up person but here goes (I am baring my twisted soul here, be kind) :
I was so much more aroused when Frodo was being corrupted by the ring (in LOTR obviously) than I ever have been at sex scenes in movies.
Just to point out that people have all different things that turn them on.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Did anyone see Sideways? It was nominated/won awards, so I rented it. Biggest mistake I ever made. The movie was disgusting, crass, and generally nasty. Then again, the movie had no plot at all, so maybe the sex was necessary to fill up enough time to constitute a movie.
I take it you didn't read the book? Taken literally, the book is about crass sex: the "need" for one last, pointless fling. (It's ultimately a coming of middle age novel.)
-----
quote: I was so much more aroused when Frodo was being corrupted by the ring (in LOTR obviously) than I ever have been at sex scenes in movies.
It's that whole "vulnerable innocence lost" thing, isn't it?
Posted by RunningBear (Member # 8477) on :
Frodo??? Ring???
I am so confused...
I am going to hide in a corner now.
I also thought that Sideways was about wine tasting. So I didnt rent it, now that I know what it was about i'm even happier I didnt.
Posted by 0range7Penguin (Member # 7337) on :
With R rated movies I like two kinds. I like ones that are cool and I have never found the sex ones cool. I mean its fun to watch Bruce Willis taking it to the badguys in die hard but these are not my favorites they are just fun here and their.
My favorite movies are the ones with the point that make you sit back and go hmmmmmm. My favorite movie is Fight Club because past the R rating its a look at modern society and how we have become our jobs, our stuff, etc. And how we need to turn back to whats actually important in life. I like movies like that no matter what rating.
What I hate are horror movies. THey are stupid and you can usually pick apart the plot. Most of them don't make sence under even a quick scrutiny. THeir just senceless gore most of the time and so faky that im not even scared because the odds of a little dead girl crawling out of my tv is about as high as a genie appearing in my bathtub.
Posted by Treason (Member # 7587) on :
" the whole vunerable innocence lost thing"
YES!
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
My wife and I went to see The Brothers Grimm last night, and were totally disappointed. I thought it was a really great idea, and a really great story that was just KILLED by the execution. I'm afraid that Gilliam may be losing his touch ...
But the worst part was the previews. It was almost all horror movies. Now, I can appreciate a good movie that happens to be scary. But modern horror artists have become SO adept at creating disturbing imagery that reaches in and twists all your primal fears that I really can't ENJOY it most of the time. I don't have fun being shocked by images of the possessed, of twisted demons, of sick crimes and murders. I can't imagine thinking of that as a fun — or even enlightening — way to spend an evening.
I'm not going to watch that Emily Rose movie. Period.
Posted by 0range7Penguin (Member # 7337) on :
Im not either because I believe im demonic possession so that just freaks me out. Demon/Satanic horror movies are the only ones I find truly frightning and I wont see them because In some ways I think its asking for trouble.
Posted by Treason (Member # 7587) on :
Oh, that Emily Rose one looks so creepy! I am definately going to go see it. Did you all see 28 days later? That's one of my favourites. Infection is one of my biggest fears (besides zombies) and this kinda had both. On a side note, Shaun of the Dead was awesome too, but funny for you people who don't like scarey horror stuff. Puppy, maybe you would like reading "Danse Macabre" by Stephen King, if you never have. He explains a lot about why people love horror and it's just a good book.
Edited because I was certainly not paying attention when I spelled "Danse Macabre" Oops.
[ September 07, 2005, 12:35 PM: Message edited by: Treason ]
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
I wasn't frightened by The Exorcist, because I don't believe that kids can be possessed by Satan through ouija boards. Satan doesn't work that way IMHO, so the entire thing was silly. ---------------- Now, Saving Private Ryan was upsetting to me, esp. at the beginning, but I think it was a valuable experience for me as a woman. Because I'll never have to fight in a war, but I still get to vote for whether or not my country should support particular wars. My decisions will be influenced by what I learned from this film, in particular that combat is more horrible than I could have previously imagined.