Violence. Profanity. Sex. Nudity. Crude dialogue. Casual drug use. Dirty jokes. Vulgar and Blasphemous Language.
With recent research suggesting movie content such as the above has been on the rise since 1992, it’s understandable that viewers who wish to make appropriate choices in entertainment (Latter-Day Saints among them) may ask themselves, “Where are the ‘decent’ films? And how can I find them?”
Many viewers may feel searching for ‘decency’ in the modern movie industry is akin to taking bites out of items in a restaurant dumpster, hoping for a few morsels of food that are edible and nutritious. You may succeed, but is it even worth the trouble digging through what will certainly be a lot of rotten and disgusting items to get there? Maybe it’s no wonder many LDS seem to have thrown in the towel, saying: “I just don’t *watch* movies (or TV) any more…”
I take a more optimistic view. There are many ‘decent’ films out there to be found, as well as the tools and resources to make informed decisions. As part of a regular series about finding good films, let’s look at ‘decency’ in film.
What are Decent Films?
The fundamental question for anyone who wants to find good movies to watch: how do I decide what counts as a ‘decent’ film for me and my family in the first place?
- Is it binary – meaning it either is, or isn’t ‘decent’? Or are there various degrees of ‘decency’?
- Does ‘decent’ mean appropriate for kids only? Can a film be acceptable for discerning, mature adults to see on their own, even if it contains material that they normally wouldn’t let their kids view?
- Can a ‘decent’ film deal with dark subject matter? Can it have an unhappy ending? Can it have a “hero” (-ine) who does many fundamentally immoral things?
- Can a film contain non-trivial amounts of profanity, sex, and/or violence and still be ‘decent’? How much is “too much”?
- How much does context matter, versus content? Can a movie have immoral content for the purpose of teaching a moral lesson and still be ‘decent’? At what point is the content itself still harmful even if the ultimate lesson is good? (After all, violence is still violence, nudity is still nudity, regardless of the context.)
LDS Church leaders encourage members to watch films that “reflect Church standards” – although, of course, there’s still some disagreement on what that actually means from a practical perspective. Strictly speaking, even many G-rated films feature vain uses of the name of deity, along with technically what many LDS consider “immodest clothing” (Think Ariel in “The Little Mermaid”, or Jasmine from “Aladdin”) Are those issues important enough to reject even films that are judged “acceptable to all audiences”?
The aptly named “Decent Films” comments on the matter as follows:
The rigorist rejection of all films that contain anything in any way offensive often seems to imply that merely watching a film is tantamount to approving of everything in the film. “You wouldn’t eat something that had even a little bit of arsenic mixed in it, would you?” they ask, implying that whatever is in a film gets imbibed along with everything else.
One reply to this objection might be that if it comes to that, people do consume trace amounts of arsenic all the time, and are quite right to do so. Tap water, for example, commonly contains some level of arsenic, but as long as the level is low enough, it does no harm to drink the water — on the contrary, it does great good, since we need water to live, and even slightly arsenic-tainted water can sustain and preserve life. Experts might quibble about exactly how much arsenic in drinking water is acceptable, but none argues that the only acceptable level is zero.
Defining “decency” and “morality” in film is not a simple process. Take war movies, for example. Movies depicting large- and small-scale battles have been visualized and filmed in varying levels of violence for many years, even movies portraying the same historical battle. What, then, makes a ‘decent’ war film?
Are the PG war films more ‘decent’ since they present effective cinematic experiences without gratuitous and unnecessary blood and gore? Or, since war is “R-rated” (or worse) in real life, does a more accurate portrayal of war and the carnage that results present the more “decent” choice since it doesn’t give viewers a sanitized (and thus inaccurate) portrait of what war is really like? Perhaps if more people see “realistic” (rather than sanitized) depictions of bloodshed on film, they will be more likely to be opposed to violence and war in real life – thus, paradoxically, the more violent films may serve as the more decent or moral alternatives.
None of the above questions are easy to answer — ultimately, every movie viewer will have to decide on their own standards for ‘decency’ in film for themselves and their families. However, even this basic truth presents a problem. How to decide on ‘decency’ before seeing the film?
(Continued…)
10 comments
jambo says:
August 17, 2010 at 10:00 pm (UTC 0)
Your logic for R-rated movies is wrong since the prophet has said don’t watch R-rated movies. Although, recently the Church has said that we shouldn’t just ban R-rated movies but any movie that isn’t appropriate. I don’t think they are lowering the standard to include Rs. I think their raising the standard to some pg-13 and maybe some pg movies. That’s not doctrine, but that’s what I understand.
Adam K. K. Figueira says:
August 17, 2010 at 10:30 pm (UTC 0)
Great post, Kevin. This has got to be among the most relevant contemporary issues. We both have felt compelled to write about it, apparently.
Jambo, I didn’t want to be the one to bring up ratings, but since it’s been mentioned let me ask you a few questions. Bear in mind that I have no desire to disparage your perspective, which I shared not many years ago, but you may not have considered some of these things. I found them out by studying the guidance of Apostles and Prophets, by conversing intelligently, and by using my God-given reason. These questions are not intended to prove you wrong, just to make you think.
What about films that aren’t rated at all?
Do you really think the Lord wants us to hand over our decision making (agency) to the MPAA (which sets the ratings), or any other such organization?
What about members in foreign countries where the ratings don’t exist?
Are you aware that the “R” counsel was given as part of a list of things to watch out for in a talk directly adressed to the youth of the church, and has never been given prophetically as a churchwide standard?
Do you think that, as Kevin said, “a film [might] be acceptable for discerning, mature adults to see on their own, even if it contains material that they normally wouldn’t let their kids view?”
Should adults keep their mental/spiritual/emotional maturity at the level of an adolescent forever?
Do you know that the “R” counsel is not in the For the Strength of Youth pamphlet, which is the document the prophets are continually counselling us to use when setting media standards?
Personally, I’ve seen “G” movies that I wouldn’t show my kids and films with violence, profanity, and sex that I can imagine showing them if their age, maturity, and needs called for it. I really think the only value of an MPAA rating is as a signal of things about a film that might need investigating. It’s only one of many elements that go into making a decision about the appropriateness of the film.
Adam K. K. Figueira says:
August 17, 2010 at 10:40 pm (UTC 0)
Oh, Kevin, I also wanted to say that I’m one who doesn’t watch TV anymore – sort of. It’s not because of the content. I still watch some TV shows online or on DVD, but it’s the commercials. Many times I find more problems with them than the actual shows, and I think the regular interruptions have a number of bad side effects.
Alan says:
August 23, 2010 at 4:36 pm (UTC 0)
I have to say I agree more with Jambo on the church stance on movies. While the prophet was talking to the youth when he said No R-rated movies, many of the church leaders have made it clear that we shouldn’t be watching graphic (or glorified) violence, nudity or profanity that drives the Spirit away. I can’t imagine you could find an R-rated movie that has none of those problems, and really at least 50-80% of PG-13 movies do as well. I’d even say that 10% of PG and 5% of G movies would fall into the category of things the church would counsel against, just as rough estimates.
I think the problem here is that we, in the church, don’t need anyone to help us be more liberal, and justify watching more mature movies than we already would. We’ve got that completely covered on our own, and that’s what our leaders are trying to warn against, with only some success. We need people to stand up for the fact that we shouldn’t be watching everything the world thinks is great and be examples to those who are more the “follower” type. If we miss a “great” movie here and there because we are being slightly strict on our choices, isn’t that a better side to err on than getting burned on a good portion of the movies we see?
Also, as far as whether we adults should stay at the maturity level of teenagers for the rest of our life with the movies we see, I would say that pretty much in all cases, yes. Obviously the themes we are interested in may be much different than themes teens are interested in, but the level of decency should still be the same, in my opinion. With the issues bishops have to deal with, with 50-60 yr old adult men having affairs and porn problems, I would say that if we think we are exempt from temptation because we are older and more mature, we are only fooling ourselves.
I admit I’ve used some of the same types of arguments in the past to justify watching certain movies that I really wanted to see, but looking back introspectively, it was generally just rationalization on my part.
Adam K. K. Figueira says:
August 23, 2010 at 5:42 pm (UTC 0)
The problem with talking dismissively about “what the world thinks is great” is that the “world” consists of our brothers and sisters – children of God – the same ones we want to join our church. It’s easy to have an exclusive attitude about the arts by thinking that only Mormons can make virtuous choices because only we have the gift of the Holy Ghost, prophetic guidance, etc.
That’s a flawed position for reasons that should be easy to see.
Also, Alan, we’re talking about two different things. As I read your comment, you are using the word “mature” to mean dirty, sinful, or otherwise containing content that sullies the mind and spirit. I’m using that word to mean films that handle issues on a more grown up level. Thinking and feeling like adults. More fair, less reactionary, with a broader scope of understanding than kids have. To say that we have to pretend things like profanity, sex, and violence don’t exist in order to make good choices is ludicrous. When we are exalted, will we have to acknowledge and come to terms with these things? To act in a divine manner towards them? Or is than not part of a knowledge of all things?
The leaders of the church are not warning against maturity, they’re encouraging it. They are warning against permissiveness and the loosening of moral standards, and I’m not arguing for that. I’m advocating a level of moral understanding that is equal to or greater than our years and the responsibilities placed upon us.
We are encouraged to be childlike, it is true, but not in our understanding. There we should be men, the scriptures say. The fact is that the world is full of difficult things that we have to face right along with everyone else. If we are to guide our children through the world, we have to understand it from a more advanced perspective than the one they have.
Not all movies with violence glorify violence. Not all movies with extramarital sex are in favor of extramarital sex. Not all movies with profanity encourage viewers to use profanity. We talk and counsel our children and each other upon various issues and evils. To say that we can’t address the same issues and evils in our art strikes me as ridiculous. Art is such a powerful means of communication. One movie that casts violence or sex or some other thing in its proper light can do as much good as any hundred sermons on the issue if the audience is receptive. And lets face it, when people choose to see a movie, they’re usually at least moderately receptive to what it says. They get an audiovisual experience, rather than words alone. Sermons are powerful, of course, but they’re not the only way to “speak” by the spirit.
I’m not saying we should go out and watch all the R rated movies we can find or that we shouldn’t stand up for what’s right. Leadership is not just abstinence. It goes both ways. Remember that while Lehi abstained from the entertainments in the great and spacious building, he also set the example by showing his family what fruit to partake of. It’s about both what you do and what you don’t do.
I’m not trying to tell you that your standard is wrong for you. I wouldn’t presume to make that judgment. I would be honored if my comments caused you to consider things you hadn’t though of, though, and if that consideration led to a prayerful realignment of your position, then I will be glad to have been of some help. If not, I will still be glad for the respectful discussion we’re having.
I do say, though, that the standards must be set individually and prayerfully. I’ve done that, and I assume you have as well.
You may be surprised to learn that while I don’t rule out movies for an R rating, I’ve never seen one with that rating. That’s mostly because in the few years since I’ve changed my position on it, I’ve never come across an R rated movie that, upon further investigation, seemed to be an appropriate choice for me. That may change some day, but it may not. I don’t view any movie just because of its rating. I don’t assume that a given rating equals goodness or badness. The rating carries weight, but it is not the ultimate criterion.
As far as being more liberal, Joseph Smith said that “our heavenly Father is more liberal in His views… than we are ready to believe or receive.” Reference.
The standard the church gives – in the For the Strength of Youth pamphlet – is the 13th Article of Faith. It’s about seeking the good, rather than looking for ways to be offended or things to condemn. That’s the way I’m choosing to approach media for myself and my family.
Alan says:
August 23, 2010 at 7:47 pm (UTC 0)
I think we actually agree on most of the things you’re talking about, but maybe we just describe them differently.
As far as being dismissive about things the world thinks are great, maybe I didn’t state that very clearly. I don’t obviously mean that we shouldn’t watch the things that the world thinks are great, but just that we shouldn’t watch things just because the world thinks they’re great. In other words, just because something gets an Oscar doesn’t mean we need to run out and see it. I’m guessing you agree with that concept. I don’t by any means think that Mormons are the only ones that can make virtuous choices. I do feel like there is a quickly shrinking population of people in the world that even care about making virtuous choices, though. Maybe that’s just from being in the film industry, which isn’t a good subset of the world by any means.
Yes, I was using the word “mature” more in the context of “Contains Mature Content” – which usually doesn’t refer to people being more fair and less reactionary. But I realize the word has at least 2 different connotations that way. I think it’s a fine line to learn as much as you can in this life, but not pollute your soul by some of the “real life” things that happen. Of course we don’t have to act like profanity, immorality, and violence don’t exist, but do we really need to watch a soldier explicity rape a 14 yr old girl or see someone’s head sawn off to be able to understand that it happens in this world? I think the argument that “it’s real life” just doesn’t fit in with church standards in many cases.
As far as the art argument, I agree that it (especially movies) can be one of the most powerful tools for communication. But maybe because I’ve been in the film industry, I get kind of jaded about the art concept with most films. Ultimately people are usually trying to make money with most of their films, meaning they will put in content that they think will sell the best. I see the animated kids movies that I work on in the earlier stages with all kinds of innuendos and (relatively mild) swearing, and at the very end of the process, one by one those elements are removed just until the point that they can get their PG rating. If those elements were really in there for art’s sake, I’m guessing they would just go for the PG-13 rating because you would otherwise be “untrue to the art”. But it’s a very calculated process with agendas everywhere. (My apologies for explaining all this if you are in the animation industry yourself!) I still see films that I think are artistically beautiful and stunning, but I just have a hard time justifying watching real-life “art” that doesn’t agree with my standards without feeling like it’s someone’s calculated agenda. Maybe it’s just me, though.
I agree that standards must be set prayerfully and individually. My wife and I have slightly differing standards on movies, and we end up having these conversations all the time. I admit I was a little surprised that with all your arguments you haven’t watched any R-rated films, but that makes me think even more that we’re just arguing the same thing differently. I just like to use NC-17 and R ratings as the threshold beyond which I don’t even need to bother looking. With so many movies that come out every week, it makes my life easier to not have to go in and scout out the content for about 50% of the movies. I do that with all the PG and PG-13 movies (that look at all interesting), though, and only watch the ones that seem appropriate. So in a way, I don’t watch movies because of their ratings either. There are tons of PG-13 movies I haven’t be willing to watch, and some PG ones even. I base it on their appropriateness.
I don’t doubt that we don’t completely understand how God thinks and feels, though I do feel like that quote from Joseph Smith is a little out of context from the way I was talking about being liberal, as the word definitely has more than one connotation.
With the Strength of the Youth link you gave, you kind of just stopped with the first line, and neglected all the rest. It says pretty directly:
Obviously those characteristics are all subjective, and left up to the individual and the Spirit to decide on, but it seems very much like a content-driven decision they’re suggesting. I don’t think that seeking the good has to be mutually exclusive with filtering out the bad – for me that’s all in the same process. Whether you seek to be offended or condemn it is a little different, maybe. It seems to me that by you not having found any R-rated movies that were appropriate for you, you’ve been doing some sort of a content-filtering system as well, because if you were only looking for the good, you could surely find some in some R-rated movies (I know I’ve seen some edited R-rated movies that had some great things in them).
Adam K. K. Figueira says:
August 24, 2010 at 4:54 pm (UTC 0)
Thanks for the info on your background, Alan. I agree that much of the artistic side of film gets lost in the business of film. It’s too bad, but film making is such a costly undertaking. Far different from writing a book, performing a song, or painting a picture. Even “low budget” productions cost more than the raw materials of most other arts. There are also so many people involved. Unless you’re already famous or rich, or have a special sponsor whose interest is the artistic investment, rather than the financial one, the constraints you have to work within to produce an artistically “pure” film are such that most people will never have any chance to see your work. The Internet helps with that, of course, but there’s still immense competition. But that’s another issue – one that I’m planning a post on, by the way.
It does seem like we’re more on the same page than I originally thought. When I changed my position on the R rating issue, it wasn’t so much a 180 degree turnabout (now I won’t watch Rs, now I will) as admitting to myself that all those people out there saying that some R rated films are good and appropriate could be right. That, and that watching an R rated film as an adult is not directly contrary to prophetic guidance, and is not inherently sinful. That was the big epiphany for me, and I think it’s true in every sense. So my way of approaching film didn’t change that much, but I felt liberated from the arbitrary ratings of a very worldly organization. I felt more free to apply a strictly gospel-based standard.
There are a few R rated films that have recently come to my attention that I’m feeling like I’ll probably see eventually, but I’m still looking into them. For all my previous statements, it still feels like something of a threshold, even though I feel fairly sure I’ve seen some unrated films that would have been R if they had been rated.
That’s one of the other things. With those films, I was able to make the decision based on my understanding of the film without being artificially bound by a rating that is, in my view, largely irrelevant to spirituality. In most cases I think I made the right decision. I’ve had some beautiful experiences with unrated films. For some reason, though, when the rating is there, I still feel a cultural pressure – like I’ll pass into a less worthy class of church members – if I can no longer say “I haven’t seen any R rated films.” That feeling is slowly fading, and I can clearly see the problems with it. But it’s there.
I repeat – I have approached this prayerfully. I have no doubt that my current stance is the right one spiritually for me and my family. But there are cultural pressures against it. Participating in discussions like this always reinforces my position in my mind, and helps me get past the unnecessary baggage.
Regarding the rest of your comment, I agree pretty much on all points. I wasn’t sure how you meant the word “liberal,” but I was hoping with that quote to turn the discussion away from politics, if it was headed there. I don’t think political views have anything to do with a gospel standard for media consumption. So I used the quote in an intentionally vague context to try and get at a better definition of liberal.
As far as the For the Strength of Youth quote, my purpose there was not to avoid the rest or to ignore the issue of content, but to point out that the scriptural basis for the standards given to the youth is an exhortation to seek out the good. Everything else in there is commentary on that scripture.
The section you quoted does point out content, but in the same breath it encourages a context-based interpretation. I think the order of the sentences is a nod to the fact that the very presence of violence or immorality is not in and of itself a disqualifying factor – given of course that it comes within reasonable bounds.
Of course, we need to set limits for content. But I think those limits can appropriately change as we age and mature. Not that they ever go away entirely, though.
Alan says:
August 24, 2010 at 6:25 pm (UTC 0)
I do appreciate being able to have conversations about these kinds of things in the LDS context. I just can’t talk about these types of things with people at work, for example, who would just stare at me like I was a complete lunatic. Like you said, it’s probably more useful for reinforcing and solidifying your own ideas than it is for changing others’ minds.
On the Strength of the Youth comment, I also noticed the more context-based sentence there, and I think that helps clarify things a little, although it does make me wonder why both sentences need to be there at all and they couldn’t just be combined. The “in any way” phrase in the 1st sentence is what causes the inner battles occasionally for me in determining what you referred to as “reasonable bounds” which are not always trivial. I also find it much easier to toss out a movie from the “To Watch” list after seeing that it has inappropriate content, than to turn off or walk out of a movie after you’re hooked into the story and the emotions.
On your last paragraph, I agree that limits may change as we age and mature, but in many ways, I’ve found that the direction of change is actually to be tighter rather than looser on things. For example, in High School, you hear so much profanity on campus that hearing more of it in a movie doesn’t always (at least seemingly) have much effect on teenagers. Where after being at a church school and on a mission for about 10 yrs, and now in a workplace where I don’t hear nearly as much of that as I did in HS, I find it much more jarring and offensive to hear that kind of stuff in movies. The other case is that seeing sexual encounters means something now that it didn’t as a teenager. Especially with immoral ones, but even watching something really steamy between a married couple feels like it’s making something public that should be private and sacred. A little like if some of the temple ceremony were portrayed in a film. That and as I try to grow closer to the Spirit each year (or sometimes just try to get back to where I was the previous year), I find things that I can remove from my entertainment that drive the Spirit away. Now in an ideal world, a teenager would be more selective than I was, though as I look at teens in our ward now, I don’t think it was that abnormal.
That being said, I love watching movies, and my wife & I tend to watch one every weekend (we don’t have normal TV either).
Adam K. K. Figueira says:
August 24, 2010 at 9:45 pm (UTC 0)
See, I was super-duper strict as a teen. So much so that even a single vain usage of the name of deity put a film on my “X-list.” I think that was good for me too, knowing what I know about myself at that age. That kind of profanity still offends me more than any other, by the way. Even so, now that I’ve matured and gotten a grip on my life goals, my hormones, and the reasons for my beliefs, I find I can be edified in spite of content that I disapprove of.
It wasn’t until I decided to pursue a career in film that I really got serious in thinking about the standards I would apply, though. There were three lessons I learned that have shaped my approach to movies. What I found first was that I could learn profound spiritual lessons – ones that I needed – from films that didn’t adhere to the same standards I would apply to my own work. I found that many filmmakers out there produced work that supported my moral standards, but didn’t share my qualms about how to address moral issues in art. Ultimately, I decided I could look past that. These films, after all, were on my side. They just spoke a different language from the one I call native. I didn’t feel like viewing them was in any way a violation of my principles.
The next thing I realized is that watching a film is not the same as endorsing a film. I am not interested in films just for their entertainment value. I rarely use them for that. I am interested in how I can use their messages to strengthen individuals and families and in what I can learn from them professionally. Occasionally I’m interested in a film for its cultural or social relevance. As I’ve said elsewhere, that doesn’t give me license to watch any filth I come across for the sake of evaluating it, but it does mean that I don’t have to feel guilty if a film I choose to watch has offensive content that I didn’t anticipate, or if the tone of the film is not what I expected. That tone, that content, do not make me sinful anymore than an uninvited dirty thought is sinful. They can be rejected in the same way. I don’t have to dwell on them and let them influence me unduly. But I have to be responsible in deciding what to watch in the first place, or I am at fault.
The third lesson is that films, like people, are imperfect. An LDS film might be acceptable in terms of PSV, but intellectually or spiritually destructive for other reasons. I’ve certainly seen some at the LDS Film Festival that I would put in that category. Another film might have too much PSV for my taste, but be so pure and profound in its message that it’s worth overlooking that. Again, there are boundaries. There are always boundaries. The point is that I shouldn’t expect any film to be exactly what I want it to be. If the efforts of a filmmaker seem good and the message is good, I can overlook some things that I don’t approve of simply as lapses in judgment, differences of opinion, or mistakes. A few mistakes don’t usually negate the value of the work as a whole. As an adolescent, they might have because I was so focused on the mistakes. Now that I’m seeking for the good, I can overlook the less serious differences if the general thrust of the film is constructive.
Thanks again for the interesting discussion.
Alan says:
August 24, 2010 at 10:59 pm (UTC 0)
Sounds like we were coming from somewhat opposite directions on strictness, but probably have ended up in a pretty similar place. And likely our relaxing vs. tightening outlooks are largely just relative to those directions.
I appreciate the concept of films being imperfect, like people. If you’re around someone that can’t stop swearing or telling bad jokes, you stop hanging around them after that, but if a good decent friend drops a word you’re not real comfortable with on rare occasion, you’re probably still going to be friends with them. Of course with people there’s no telling what will come out of their mouths, where with (at least the mainstream commercial) movies, there are typically the Kids-in-mind-style details up front, so like you said, with more resources at our fingertips, comes the added responsibility of choosing wisely.
I look forward to reading other posts in this series.