I once had a discussion with someone a couple of years ago about the movie The Breakfast Club. This individual stated that the film was rated R and I did not believe it. I could have sworn it was rated lower. So I did a bit of sleuthing and I discovered something interesting. This individual was correct: it was rated R. The thing is though that the R rating was a US rating; in Canada, it was rated PG-13.
This brought up an interesting conversation: when the Brethren state that we should not watch R-rated films, are they referring to US ratings, or are they referring to the ratings of the films where one lives? Should I have based my decision to watch The Breakfast Club on the US system (where the general authorities live), or should I have based it on my local rating system?
Perhaps this is something the brethren recognised, and that is why we rarely hear this specific counsel anymore.
Which actually brings up something else. What about films that were originally R-rated, but have been edited to remove objectionable content? While it may be true that one would be following the letter of the law in not watching an R-rated film per se, it is also true that at some point the R-rated film had to be purchased. In one sense, such an individual would still be supporting R-rated movies.
Kim, I have to assume, based on criteria you’ve given in previous threads, that you think any Brethren who advised against seeing R-rated films were merely expressing their own, uninspired opinions. If that is the case, why are you bothering your head about it?
Yes, Kim. Why so strict all of a sudden?
Is it okay to work for a company or cinema or film studio that produces, distributes or displays R-Rated Movies?
Is it okay to work for a convenience store that stocks R-Rated Magazines?
You really don’t know Kim very well if you assume he doesn’t follow the counsel of the Brethren. Or if you assume he doesn’t believe they are inspired.
How about honestly giving your opinion on the questions rather than ridiculing it?
Mary, Kim has listed his criteria for what is inspired and what isn’t very explicitly and very repeatedly on many threads. I don’t see those criteria met here, so I’m trying to follow Kim’s reasoning. Does he believe this counsel was inspired? If so, how does he reconcile that belief with his previous assertions that other words from the Brethren were not inspired?
That’s not ridicule, it’s logical inquiry. It’s also not dishonest.
ltbugaf, whether I think the Brethren were inspired in this counsel is irrelevant to the post. If you need clarification on the topic of the post, please let me know, and I will be free to offer it.
Eric, I’m not sure what you mean. How am I being strict?
I think Heavenly Father has given us free agency, and the bretheren guidlines to follow using that free agency. Personally, I check ratings and rating descriptions before going to see a movie. I personally don’t want to see anything rated with “extreme violence”, “explicit sexual scenes” etc. anyways…regardless of what the bretheren say. JMHO.
K.
I think the topic of whether you believe the counsel is inspired is relevant to the post for this reason: If you believe this counsel is nothing more than uninspired opinion, then I don’t see why you would feel any need to follow it or even think about it. There would be no reason to think about whether it’s “ok” or “not ok” to see such a film. That issue appears to me to be central to the topic of the post.
ltbugaf, do you really feel right in your heart about insulting people?
MahNahvu: I don’t believe I’ve insulted anyone above.
Kris,
I agree with you. That’s my thought on R-rated or other rated films.
ltbugaf, feel free to discuss the inspiration of the Brethren here. Feel free to discuss the logistics of the R-rating counsel here.
So you don’t believe the issue of whether this counsel is inspired has any bearing on how we should view the question of what is or isn’t R-rated?
Sorry Kim if my comment seemed to insult or ridicule. Many of your recent posts seem to have an obvious ‘lean’ in a direction. This one seems to ‘lean’ toward wanting to strictly follow whatever the brothren say in what movies we watch which I view as usually a minor thing. Previous posts have seemed to me to lean toward questioning what church leaders have said about topics that to me are more important than this.
If you want my take, I would not see anything that was rated ‘R’ in either country – why play near the edge? But let’s not beat ourselves up to bad either. The spirit of the 13th article of faith is the best guide. Much better than the movie rating system.
Well, the decision to watch the above-mentioned film was made when I was a teenager. My practises then and now are not entirely equal.
Oh, and no need to apologise. I did not feel ridiculed or insulted by your comment. A bit confused, maybe.
Personally, I don’t base my film-watching habits on ratings. I base them on content. Screen-it is my best friend. Well, actually, Mary is, but Screen-it is more like a dog.
I’m speechless as to how to respond following that last comment.
The R-Rating is a very wide blanket across a vast amount of films for a variety of reasons. I live in a province that does not use the R-rating in the same way as the American system does. Only the most explicit films receive a R-Rating in BC. I would guess that the brethern were addressing the U.S. system and advising members to avoid movies that are Rated-R in the US, but they have not been specific on that. I agree Kim that perhaps as the church grows internationally, the brethern realize that the R-Rating means different things in different countries with some countries not having a R-rating at all. Using the American rating system for a world church is near-sighted, unless they address the existence of different rating systems and advise members to follow the American system.
Members should and are expected judge for themselves. The internet has many great sites that explain the questionable content of all films for viewers to judge. Personally, I first check critical reviews to find out if the film is good – if it’s authenthic, truthful, well-written, etc. This also tells me the theme and genre of the movie. I will sometimes tolerate content that moves into the U.S. R-Rating if I judge the movie is worthwhile, educational, honest, praiseworthy, etc. But that being said, my province’s rating system always give these movies a 14A rating. I tend to watch dramas, foreigns, indies and documentaries, if you’re shopping for my birthday.
I would support a “content filtering” system for films, but my viewing habits would stay the same, I would just hear the F-bomb less, among other things. The only way to remove the crap from most films is to erase the whole thing.
Please be assured, I wasn’t attempting to divert the thread to a completely different topic. I just think that if the counsel isn’t inspired in the first place, then the question posed doesn’t really exist. So I thought I was asking something fundamental to this thread.
The topic is for all of us. I beleive Kim posts questions that will be of interest to the group and generate discussion. Perhaps it’s best to ignore for the most part who the question is coming from, thus ignoring all our notions of the person’s beliefs, opinions etc – and just try and answer the question posed. Go at it cold.
Orson Scott Card expresses his views on this issue in an interesting essay called, “Is There an R-Rated Movie Commandment?” on his Nauvoo web site:
http://www.nauvoo.com/r-rated-movie.html
ltbugaf as you pointed out:
“If you believe this counsel is nothing more than uninspired opinion, then I don’t see why [Kim] would feel any need to follow it or even think about it.”
And since he did see a need, it follows that he believes in the inspiration of the leaders of the church.
Yes, Jeff, and if that is the case then it seems inconsistent with the criteria Kim has given for identifying inspired vs. uninspired statements in the past.
But I’ve been told not to discuss that issue here, so…
Regardless of the divine inspiration of the brethren, taking a movie rating into consideration is good advice.
I haven’t watched “The Passion” as the Orson Scott Card link (see 19) refers to, but I know there have been some very important R-rated movies that I think every responsible adult should see.
Schindler’s List comes first to my mind. Some movies are so important to see that one must use their own judgment and not blindly follow a blanket rule that just because the MPAA happens to have rated a movie R, that it is forbidden under all circumstances.
The Breakfast Club is probably a different story altogether. My point: learn why a movie is rated the way it is, and then use your own judgment.
I watched The Breakfast Club in high school. I have also watched Schindler’s List and Saving Private Ryan. I think those were good decisions. In other instances, I’ve made bad decisions and subjected myself to movies that did far more harm than good.
I haven’t seen The Passion of the Christ because I haven’t wanted to see it alone and the only person I would want to see it with doesn’t choose to.
‘far more harm than good’
Three words:
Eyes Wide Shut
Actually, it seems to me that ANYTHING featuring Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman together would be a mistake, regardless of how clothed or unclothed anyone may be. ;)
I have personally decided to avoid R-rated movies altogether. The one movie that I broke that ban on recently was Farenheight 9-11.
I also closely monitor what pg-13 movies I will watch, there are plenty out there that are as bad or worse than some R movies.
But I think that your first question was about the ratings systems for Canada as opposed to the US. I agree that the brethren have strayed away from the “R rating commandment” for the very reason you mentioned, because we are moving worldwide.
We should be able to decide for ourselves what we should be watching.
As far as movies that have been edited, I don’t have a problem with it. I haven’t actually seen any though. My old bishop had an edited version of the Matrix that he loved to watch. I heard it was about an hour long though due to the amount of edits in it.
Ian’s reply raises an interesting concept, and I hope you won’t think I’m threadjacking if I ask about it:
Ian says he made a decision for himself not to watch R-rated pictures, and that we should decide for ourselves what we should be seeing. So: If a person decides not to see R-rated pictures for no other reason than that he believes the Prophet told him not to, is that person deciding for himself? I think he is. He’s choosing obedience.
I’m fine with President Benson’s counsel, though as has been mentioned it is couched in terms that are somewhat U.S. centric. I do realize that it was given specifically to the youth of the Church, but I as an adult generally follow that counsel.
As to the the specific term “R-rated” it appears the Church is separating itself from using that term and I wouldn’t be surprised if the very problem Kim highlights isn’t part of the reason why.
I remember a trip to Victoria, B.C. about 8 years ago and “Good Will Hunting” was playing at the local theatre. It was R-rated in the U.S., but only PG-13 in B.C. We jointly decided to take advantage of the loophole and see a movie we’d both wanted to see but hadn’t. Sans guilt!
I digress. Outside the section on Pron, the only mention of media in the new True To The Faith book i reads as follows:
You cannot avoid temptation completely, but you can avoid places or situations where you are likely to be tempted. You can also avoid inappropriate material in magazines, books, television, movies, and music and on the Internet.
“Inappropriate” is a much broader term to interpret. There are things that are inappropriate for my 9-year-old that wouldn’t be be for my wife and I. There are things that are inappropriate for a teenage boy that might not be for an adult.
I don’t know that the question is specifically answered except to say that the term “R-rated” is no longer emphasized.
I’ve noticed that many, many members of the Church use the term “inappropriate” as a euphemism for “having sexual content.” I suppose it’s similar to the way many of us equate “morality” with its included but much narrower relative, “sexual purity.”
OK, “relative” is not the best choice of words. Let’s try “subset.”
Oh, I see I missed part of the question. One of my pet peeves is people who gripe about the “evil state of Hollywood” these days and then rent/purchase those same movies and watch them through a Clean-Flicks-style filter.
Movies live or die based on money earned. There is no mechanism for determining whether a purchased movie was viewed as-is or through a filter. It rings up all the same in Hollywood. Those who buy the movie and later watch it through a filter may have kept their ears from hearing naughty words, but the message heard in Hollywood is the those naughty bits sell DVDs. More movies of that ilk (or worse) will be made if the indicators (read:$$$) show it was successful.
Additionally, filters may keep you from seeing bare breasts or hearing the f-bomb, but they rarely do anything in terms of theme, nuance, or acts of violence. You may not see the unclothed scenes, but you see everything that led up to it regardless of its “inappropriate” nature.
I use the term “inappropriate” as meaning not suitable for situation, age, maturity or my standards. Never specifically pertaining to sexual content. Within the church, morality or moral cleanliness seems to always reference things pertaining to the Law of Chasity. I think we should refer to being chaste or chasity when discussing sexual matters as morality has a much broader definition concerning what we believe is right and wrong.
Okay, I’ve withheld replying so far, but I feel I should share my thoughts (not that I am going to change anyone’s mind). ;-)
My personal barometer of movie watching is whether “Movie-X” will dull my sensitivity – spiritual or emotional.
The way I see it, if I am a regular movie-watcher, I am experiencing many more instances of *insert emotion here* than I would in my usual experience. This is not bad in itself, and it’s why I love to read. But with reading, I can take a break if I need to; I can walk away, ground myself in my reality, then reengage. My reading of “Night,” by Elie Wiesel is a perfect example of this experience.
However, with movies, I can pack most of the emotional highs and lows into a 2 hour stint. And it’s usually more difficult to stop the movie in the middle to take a break.
Multiply this by 5-10 movies a month, and I’m experiencing more vicariously than I would in life. The trade-off in my opinion is that it leads to desensitization to abhorrent ideas such as violence, and to emotions such as joy.
So Polly, when you talk about how movies have you living more vicariously and lead to desensitization, are you referring to movies in general or specifically movies that the MPAA would give an R-Rating to?
If you want to see the Breakfast Club, just turn your tv on any Saturday afternoon.
I haven’t watched “The Passion†as the Orson Scott Card link (see 19) refers to, but I know there have been some very important R-rated movies that I think every responsible adult should see.
I disagree, and this is a pet peeve of mine. I don’t have to see movies to understand how horrible the holocaust or WWII were.
I’m almost certain that parts of chapter 9 of Moroni should be rated “R”.
Susan, I’ll take the bait. I’ve made this argument with regard to films where it really doesn’t apply in the past. However, there is a difference between understanding something intellectually and experiencing it emotionally. The best example that I can give is the BBC’s “The War Game”. It’s a documentary-style exposition of a hypothetical nuclear war and it drove me to tears. Holding the views that I hold about nuclear weapons, I found it very compelling and I would think anyone should see it. I intellectually knew all about megatons, pressure per square inch, airburst v. groundburst, circular error probable, and megadeaths. But that movie helped me to bring my emotions to a point that corresponded to where my intellect was. The mind is great, but it’s the heart that motivates.
The film was graphic enough that the BBC declined to show it for five years. It would chill anyone with a pulse, in my view. Had it been released in the United States, it would have certainly received an R rating. Were it showing in your theater, I would urge you to see it on the grounds that nothing else can provide the experience that this film did.
I’m not saying that one who does not see the film is a bad person, but simply that seeing it would be a positive thing for anyone, in my view.
I understand that. But movies aren’t the only avenues for gaining emotional understanding of something.
That’s the problem with Hollywood: they depend on affecting one’s emotions for a movie to be effective. This is precisely why I prefer theatre over film.
Kim, most theater depends on affecting emotions as well. There’s really only a tiny subset of theater, including the works of Bertolt Brecht, that deliberately tries not to do so. Yet even Brecht couldn’t avoid evoking emotions, no matter how didactic he tried to be. Emotions are an intrinsic part of storytelling. Telling and hearing (or seeing) stories is a basic human need.
Jeff Milner said:
Movies in general. And it’s not that I live vicariously, it’s experiencing emotions, vicariously, as Kim talks aboot.
For example, I’m a huge fan of Steven Spielberg as a director. He creates an emotional tone in his films. It seems that for him, it’s all aboot the character development and the emotional tone driving the story.
War of the Worlds is a recent example of this. It wasn’t a great story or dialogue; it was the emotional tone and interaction with the characters that drove it. I felt so much anxiety during that movie, it was like I would burst. I couldn’t watch many movies like that often without it affecting me.
I didn’t watch Shindler’s List, but I have read Holocaust literature, both fiction and non-fiction, extensively. I have an emotional understanding of the horrors of the Holocaust; I don’t need the Hollywood visuals.
BTW, If anyone has read Wiesel’s Night and seen Shindler’s List, can you please compare your emotional reactions to each?
ltbugaf, popular theatre? Yes. Most theatre? Very unlikely. Given the theatre I have experienced as a drama major and the films I have experienced, there is certainly a difference between the two.
And for the record, emotion-less theatre was not inveted by Brecht. It’s been around for much longer (centuries, arguable millenia). It’s emotional, theatrical theatre that is the newcomer. While popular productions may seem like it’s a large component of theatre, it actually is the tiny subset.
Itbugaf: I don’t believe I’ve insulted anyone above.
I take you at your word and extend my apology.
Emotions are an intrinsic part of storytelling. Telling and hearing (or seeing) stories is a basic human need.
A very insightful comment.
Kim, I think you’re looking at the term “emotionless” quite differently from the way I do. Theater going at least as far back as the time of Aristotle has commonly contained elements of crisis, climax and catharsis, all of which consist either entirely or partly of emotional content.
“I think you’re looking at the term ’emotionless’ quite differently from the way I do.”
Perhaps. I was referring to the fact the most theatre does not rely on the audience feeling sadness or elation or anger or fear (and so on) in order to be effective in fulfilling its purpose.
Susan: taking as an example the case I mentioned, what are some viable alternatives to film? Obviously, you could talk to Hiroshima victims, use your imagination, et cetera, but film seems to be the most effective means of doing so, at least in this case.
Kim: I don’t see anything wrong with a need to appeal to emotions. I like to think of myself as a pretty rational guy and I think emotions have their place. They shouldn’t ever be used exclusively, but they’re a legitimate part of the human experience.
Kim, I can’t tell whether you believe that the plays of Shakespeare, Sophocles, and Chekhov, for example, do not depend on evoking emotions in order to succeed, or whether you believe they fall into the “tiny subset” of plays that do.
But perhaps by pursuing this question, I’m getting too far from the topic.
Maybe movies that are rated R in the US and PG-13 in Canada have actually been edited for the Canadian version and you’re not seeing the same movie that’s shown in the US. Is that possible?
Have you seen any Chekhov plays? I’ve seen Cherry Orchard and Uncle Vanya. Neither of them were performed in a way that the audience was required to connect emotionally to the play.
At the same time, comparing the works of playwrights is like comparing the scripts of screenwriters. Neither has emotion. It is the final product that has emotion, if any.
That may be possible Bookslingr, but its doubtful given the content shown on Screenit is often exactly was is shown in the films. Or at least based on my experience.