posted
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.
Posts: 4 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 870 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 18 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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
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.
Posts: 700 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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!
Posts: 883 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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...
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1512 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
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!
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.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 326 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 16 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. :-)
Posts: 16 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It may be that watching R-rated movies brings him close enough to the Spirit to know what the Spirit wants.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. :-)
Posts: 16 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. :-)
Posts: 16 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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". Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 870 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 883 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 832 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
