Movies With Objectionable Content

[SoylentGreene]

Is it ever ok to watch movies with objectionable content, rated R?

[Luigi]

I'd say it is acceptable, sometimes.

If the objectionable content is gratuitous - if it doesn't contribute to the point of the story, if it's not serious, if it's just indulgent - then there's no point in watching it and it could you lead the viewer into sin.

But if the objectionable material is vital to the story, then it is acceptable to view it since knowledge of the objectionable matter is necessary to understanding the point - character development, the hero's growth in understanding, conversion of the hero, etc.

For example, if I were to make a biopic of St. Augustine, I would need to show his dissolute life prior to his conversion so that the viewers could understand the depths of his depravity and the miraculous nature of his conversion.

Caveat: Determining whether to watch any given objectionable material in any given objectionable movie is difficult to do before the fact. It's hard to know just what will be shown, just how graphic it will be, just how long it will last, etc. Additionally, the viewer has to determine his/her own tolerance of objectionable material - the less mature viewer may be more easily & deeply affected, more negatively, by the same material that a more mature viewer can tolerate.

But when you phrase the question, "Is it [i]ever[/i] ok...?" then I have to resond, "Yes, sometimes."

[Not A Mallard]

USE THE FAST FOR.......WARD BUTTON

Edited December 26, 2011 by Not A Mallard

[Luigi]

[quote name='Not A Mallard' timestamp='1324914641' post='2357662']
Fast forward buttons
[/quote]

Excellent solution!

[Totus Tuus]

I always just skip scenes that would be an occasion of sin for me or my husband. I think occasions of sin or scandal could be different for different people, especially depending on age (i.e., excessive language is a no-no for kids, but I'm not scandalized by it at my age... but I will ALWAYS skip graphic sex scenes). A good example is Gattaca. I LOVE the movie, but I always skip the one scene that makes the movie questionable to me. I've never seen it, but someone who watched it before me warned me, so I knew when to skip it, and now I always do whenever I watch it.

[MithLuin]

I think that what makes a movie rated 'R' and what makes it morally objectionable are not always the same thing. For instance, 'The Passion of the Christ' is rated R for violence - and it's about as graphic as you can get with movie violence and a completely unflinching camera. But apart from young children, I really don't see the movie as inappropriate for viewing.

As for sex scenes, there are PG-13 ones that show little flesh and yet are still incredibly awkward to watch with your family. For instance....Enemy at the Gates (rated R). They're in a sleeping bag and don't take (much) clothing off, since there are other people nearby. Still....

While it is true that sometimes sexual immorality is relevant to the storyline (for instance, in [i]13th warrior[/i], Antonio Banderas' character is exiled because of an affair, and his acceptance as a man by one of the women in the Viking village is shown when she spends the night with him), that does not mean that graphic portrayals are necessary or legitimate to watch. For instance, in 'The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo', a brutal rape is very much relevant to the plot. But...does that make it okay to watch someone tie somebody up and sodomize them? Likewise with 'Cape Fear' - we know the villain is unquestionably brutal when he bites the woman's cheek like an apple. That level of explicit violence is relevant to the story, but I'm not sure that excuses anything.

I think it is better to have standards of what is acceptable in film, with gratuitous stuff getting less of a pass than relevant stuff, but certain things inappropriate no matter what. Here are some things by Pope John Paul II to read about the portrayal of the human body in art :

[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/jp2tb59.htm"]Theology of the Body audience 59: The Human Body, Subject of Works of Art[/url]
[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/jp2tb60.htm"]Audience 60: Reflections on the Ethos of the Body in Works of Artistic Culture[/url]
[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/jp2tb61.htm"]Audience 61: Art Must Not Violate the Right to Privacy[/url]
[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/jp2tb62.htm"]Audience 62: Ethical Responsibilities in Art[/url]

Essentially...we are responsible for avoiding temptations, and if scenes in a TV show or movie are going to have that effect on you....turn it off, fast forward, or walk away. Avoiding rated R or 'M' material all the time is another possible solution. I mean, one could give up watching all movies and say it was for moral reasons, and it would be difficult to argue with that...but I don't think that's the only Christian response to the dilemma.

Edited December 26, 2011 by MithLuin

[ThePenciledOne]

Yes.

[Lil Red]

i definitely skipped over certain scenes in the original "Girl with a Dragon Tattoo" movie.

[SoylentGreene]

I was referring to the dragon tattoo movie. The plot sounds interedsting but not sure about the graphic sex.

[SoylentGreene]

Has anyone herr seen the newwer version?

[Basilisa Marie]

[quote name='Lil Red' timestamp='1324944839' post='2357821']
i definitely skipped over certain scenes in the original "Girl with a Dragon Tattoo" movie.
[/quote]

Yup. I still felt like taking a shower afterwards. At least there was some resolution in the third movie, though.

[quote name='SoylentGreene' timestamp='1324951581' post='2357850']
I was referring to the dragon tattoo movie. The plot sounds interedsting but not sure about the graphic sex.
[/quote]

I want to go see this one, if only because I'm curious to see how it lines up with the Swedish original and the books. It's pretty disturbing, but depending on the audience I don't think it's inherently sinful to watch it.

[AccountDeleted]

There was a time when movies were made about many of the same topics as today except that they were somehow able to 'infer' the violence or the sex acts without actually showing them graphically. But of course, some topics were considered too objectionable even to cover in that way, so censorship was a bit too strong.

I am probably like many on here who will watch things I want but if the visuals become too objectionable to me, I will either switch channels on TV or fast forward through them. Depending on the audience, even the simplest scenes can be objectionable. While I was in a Carmelite convent, we watched the video of Around the World in 80 days (the newer TV mini-series version with Pierce Brosnan). It is a fairly harmless movie, but it became very awkward for a group of nuns to watch during a romantic love scene between Pierce and Julia Nickson, even though it was very innocent compared with some movies, so we fast forwarded it.

Children need to be protected of course, and that is why it is essential that adults know the content of a film or video before they allow their children to watch it. But most adults should be able to censor material themselves (especially if they are watching on TV or video and not in the cinema). I just avoid material I think will be too offensive for me, and censor the rest.

[SoylentGreene]

hmmm interesting. You've definitely given me food for thought. Thanks!

[Brother Adam]

I agree with what others have posted here. JPII's Theology of the Body is an excellent jumping off point.

That depends on how you define objectionable content. The mere depiction of sin in a movie does not make it objectionable - or nearly any film about Jesus would be off limits as would most Catholic classics. We are told though to "avoid the near occasion of sin". The near occasion may differ for different people. I can drink a beer without fear of becoming drunk, where someone else might not be able to be near alcohol. That doesn't make me better than another person, I have my own trails and we are all trying to get to heaven.

While the depiction of sin is not wrong, there is definitely a line that can be crossed where it would be an occasion for sin for anyone. Many people feel that Mel Gibson crossed that line with the violence of the Passion of the Christ. Sex and nudity can be used in film without being a near occasion of sin - I would not consider the nudity in Schindler's List pornographic. There is no attempt to exploit the sexual value of the person, but rather show the loss of their dignity. I would consider the nudity in 300 or Starship Troopers to be pornographic though. The dignity of the people in those movies are exploited for the entertainment of the audience. I haven't seen The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, but describing it as a gratuitous sex scene seems to fall on the side of pornography.

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1324937538' post='2357785']..Enemy at the Gates" 'The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo', 'Cape Fear'

[/quote]

seeing the first one for the 5th time tonight, saw the middle one(the new remake) earlier today, and just saw the last one recently as well. uncanny.

girl with the Dragon Tattoo (and the swedish one i saw a while back) is really really brutal for one scene. very hard to watch. But like a WW2 movie would be pointless if it didnt show horrors of war, this scene is necessary to accurately tell the story. could it have been shorter? sure. but seeing it like that created a truly guttural revulsion for the act of rape. turned my view on it from academic, to almost personal. i dont know. but it was effective.

not that i didnt hate it before, but there is a difference between knowing murder is horrible and seeing someone killed in front of you

Edited December 27, 2011 by Jesus_lol