The Latest "Movie Made by Mormons" Ain't Too Mormon-Friendly

[smac97]

This is why they are sometimes called "teasers". Maybe he was "spying" on her or maybe he was just walking around the corner and "oops" there she was!

The first shot is of the woman taking off her top (the shot is from behind, so it's her bare back). Then it cuts to this:

Then it cuts back the woman turning her head and looking indignantly at Mr. Leering-at-the-Half-Naked-Lady Dude.

I dunno. The cutting of the trailer makes an "oops" situation unlikely.

Heck! I've seen trailers that knit two completely unrelated scenes together just to play with your mind!

So Ryan Little cut the trailer (or allowed it to be cut) in such a way as to show a woman undressing and a scruffy dude leering at her as she does so. And maybe he was playing with our minds when he did this. And that's okay for an LDS filmmaker...how, exactly?

At any rate, the director doesn't generally do the trailer anyway.

It's a low budget movie. The director probably made the hot chocolate for the rest of the crew every day. So I think it's reasonable to surmise that he played some role in cutting the trailer. Plus he, you know, did photograph a woman taking her clothes off, a man leering at her as she does so, another scene (apparently a sex scene) where the woman is taking her clothes off again.

Do you happen to know if this director is also producing this movie?

The producers are "McKay Daines" and "Steve Lee" (Daines also wrote the screenplay). Daines is apparently LDS (see here), as is apparently Steve Lee (see here).

Powerful directors usually call most of the shots and have almost full artistic control--except for editing. Many directors though, are kind of at the mercy of the producers.

In this case, the director and the producers are, apparently, all LDS.

I feel kind of bad for LDS people who try to make a living as a director or actor because there are so few productions that contain absolutely nothing questionable.

I agree. I went to the LDS Film Festival's showing of Forever Strong two years ago. There was a Q&A with Ryan Little afterward. A few people complained about that film's depiction of a teen pool party where some of the girls were wearing bikinis. Ryan made some astute comments about it. He said that there is no way to please everyone. He pointed out that the pool party was very tame as compared to depictions in most movies and on TV, that it showed teens partying and drinking, but that immediately afterward some of those teens were involved in a serious car accident because they drove home from the party drunk. In other words, he was trying to be realistic, and yet now portray this behavior as something young folks in the audience would want to emulate.

So I get that Ryan and other filmmakers have a tough row to hoe. But I think there are some "bright line rules" that should not be broken. Profanity (that is, taking the Lord's name in vain) is one. Nudity and sex scenes are another. I'm not sure if Age of the Dragons will have any overtly objectionable nudity, but it looks like there's a sex scene in there. And that's disappointing.

It would almost be like trying to be a defense attorney who never represents someone who actually committed a crime.

No, nothing like. Defense attorneys fill a role that must be filled in our society. Plus, defense attorneys are not complicit in the wrongful acts of their clients. They just make sure that the prosecution does its job properly.

In contrast, our society can get along just fine without LDS filmmakers putting sex scenes (and, possibly, nudity) in their films.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Deborah]

This is why they are sometimes called "teasers"....

Exactly. How many times do you see scenes in "teasers" that aren't even in the finished product.

Since I like fantastic tales I will probably see this.

[Garden Girl]

the harry potter nude scene is worse.

Harry Potter had a nude scene??!!

GG

[frankenstein]

Harry Potter had a nude scene??!!

GG

well of sorts. The trailer in question linked by smac shows full bare back of female who is wearing leather pants.

in Harry Potter, Harry and Herminone, in what is a sort of "dream" for Ron, are nude embracing each and kissing passionately. So I would say the Harry Potter scene has more nudity than in the teaser.

[LDSToronto]

I dunno. The cutting of the trailer makes an "oops" situation unlikely.

Personally, I'd reserve judgment till the movie comes out. Hollywood has a way of splicing these trailers together with short clips that are not close in time nor close in context. The result is a movie trailer that depicts a sexy, action-packed movie. A good example of this is 'The Tourist', starring Johnny Depp and Angelina Jolie. While I haven't seen the movie, there are two trailers - one trailer gives the impression that Angelina Jolie's character is manipulating Johnny Depp's character, while the second trailer insinuates a completely different movie where Johnny Depp is the action hero, and Angelina Jolie's character is a criminal.

So, it may look like there are sex scenes and nudity in the 'Age of Dragons' movie, but it may be just some clever clip editing.

H.

[katherine the great]

I normally would not even be tempted to see this type of a film but I might just to see if Smac is completely overreacting (which I suspect he is). I notice that no comment of disgust was made over the full frontal upper body male nudity in this movie but a womans bare shoulders and a peek at a back covered almost completely by long hair is so shocking! Sorry but I find that patently absurd but if there is a blatent (not implied) sex scene, I will change my mind.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I normally would not even be tempted to see this type of a film but I might just to see if Smac is completely overreacting (which I suspect he is). I notice that no comment of disgust was made over the full frontal upper body male nudity in this movie but a womans bare shoulders and a peek at a back covered almost completely by long hair is so shocking! Sorry but I find that patently absurd but if there is a blatent (not implied) sex scene, I will change my mind.

I almost mentioned Twilight's bare-chested young fellows in my first response, but why bother?

[Calm]

This is why they are sometimes called "teasers". Maybe he was "spying" on her or maybe he was just walking around the corner and "oops" there she was! Heck! I've seen trailers that knit two completely unrelated scenes together just to play with your mind! At any rate, the director doesn't generally do the trailer anyway. Do you happen to know if this director is also producing this movie? Powerful directors usually call most of the shots and have almost full artistic control--except for editing. Many directors though, are kind of at the mercy of the producers. I feel kind of bad for LDS people who try to make a living as a director or actor because there are so few productions that contain absolutely nothing questionable. It would almost be like trying to be a defense attorney who never represents someone who actually committed a crime.

I remember a recent movie I kept looking for a couple of scenes from the trailers and never saw them. Just because something is in a trailer doesn't mean it will make the final cut (probably will get put in the deleted scenes though).

[katherine the great]

Back to the Future was pretty original. Yeah, movies have had time machines in them before, but I think this is the first time a teenager met his parents when they were the same age.

. I thought the same thing! Of course it could be argued that it was loosely based on The Time Machine but that would be a stretch.

[smac97]

I normally would not even be tempted to see this type of a film but I might just to see if Smac is completely overreacting (which I suspect he is).

If this was a movie starring Sharon Stone, or some other by-the-numbers Hollywood flick, I wouldn't give it much thought. Nudity from the female protagonist is pretty much de rigueur in "hard" action flicks these days. I don't like it, and I register that dislike by ignoring such movies and not patronizing them.

But I expect, well, a higher standard of artistry and behavior from my fellow Latter-day Saints. I'm not sure it's "overreacting" to voice concern about partial nudity and an apparent sex scene in a movie being made by Mormons.

I notice that no comment of disgust was made over the full frontal upper body male nudity in this movie

Oh, come on, Katherine. So you go topless at the beach? You don't see any difference between the topography of a woman's chest as compared to a man's? Sorry. Not buying that.

but a womans bare shoulders and a peek at a back covered almost completely by long hair is so shocking!

Frankly, it was the apparent sex scene that surprised me.

And again, it was not her bare back that was "shocking." It's partial nudity and an apparent sex scene in a movie made by Mormons that I find problematic.

Sorry but I find that patently absurd but if there is a blatent (not implied) sex scene, I will change my mind.

Reasonable minds can disagree about all sorts of things. I've always said that.

Thanks,

Smac

[cinepro]

That Sofia Pernas looks like a great actress. I can't wait to see more of her.

[katherine the great]

Oh, come on, Katherine. So you go topless at the beach? You don't see any difference between the topography of a woman's chest as compared to a man's? Sorry. Not buying that.

Frankly, it was the apparent sex scene that surprised me.

And again, it was not her bare back that was "shocking." It's partial nudity and an apparent sex scene in a movie made by Mormons that I find problematic.

Reasonable minds can disagree about all sorts of things. I've always said that.

Thanks,

Smac

I didn't see any type of a "sex scene" in that trailer. Maybe I was watching a different trailer. I do not go topless at the beach but my shoulders and back are most definitely exposed as are everyone else's. I have never even seen this movie advertised. Do you know when its being released?

[rick7475]

The original 1978 Battlestar Galactica had a complete side view nude scene of Maren Jensen (Athena). The creator of the movie and series was Glen A. Larsen.

[frankenstein]

I didn't see any type of a "sex scene" in that trailer. Maybe I was watching a different trailer. I do not go topless at the beach but my shoulders and back are most definitely exposed as are everyone else's. I have never even seen this movie advertised. Do you know when its being released?

it is at the end of the trailer, you see the female from about mid tricep up (one can not determine if she is clothed) character take in a deep breath

I will go with "wise but harmless" for the trailer. The Director was very wise to use the appeal of the female character to get males more interested in the film.

[Stargazer]

This is why they are sometimes called "teasers". Maybe he was "spying" on her or maybe he was just walking around the corner and "oops" there she was! Heck! I've seen trailers that knit two completely unrelated scenes together just to play with your mind! At any rate, the director doesn't generally do the trailer anyway. Do you happen to know if this director is also producing this movie? Powerful directors usually call most of the shots and have almost full artistic control--except for editing. Many directors though, are kind of at the mercy of the producers. I feel kind of bad for LDS people who try to make a living as a director or actor because there are so few productions that contain absolutely nothing questionable. It would almost be like trying to be a defense attorney who never represents someone who actually committed a crime.

I've seen trailers that contained material from scenes that never made it into the finished movie. Including trailers that contained material shot especially for the trailer that didn't contain any material dealing with the actual plot. One of my sons worked as a writer and actor in a B-movie that was sold to a distribution company, and they were required to provide a trailer along with the master video files, but the production company ended up making their own trailer, much as katherine states.

I'm embarrased to say that I am in my son's movie for a brief scene, and even appear in the trailer. I don't know what possessed me. I got $50 for my speaking part -- I wonder if I can apply for membership in the Screen Actors Guild? I am not going to tell you about the movie, so don't ask. I don't even know why I'm telling you about it. Maybe I'm bemused by it.

There are precious few things that someone won't get annoyed by. A friend of mine used to be a minister in one of those little breakaway churches that grew up as the Worldwide Church of God turned itself from a Sabbatarian organization founded by Herbert W. Armstrong into the standard EV model. He was forced to resign his position because he spoke out in a sermon against the demonizing influences in the Twilight novels and movies -- apparently the head pastor's children were all Twilight fans and didn't appreciate his ragging on it.

Now, THERE'S a Mormon movie series if there ever was one: Twilight.

[DH]

But I don't object to on-screen "violence" per se. It is a qualitatively different aspect of the human condition. I won't go to a movie with gratuitous violence (Pulp Fiction or Reservoir Dogs) or gory violence (pretty much any modern horror movie) or depraved violence (Hound Dog). But violence depicting the struggle between good and evil (Star Wars. Lord of the Rings, The Great Escape, etc.) or even adventurous violence (Moby Dlck, Indiana Jones, etc.) is just hunky dory by me (as long as it doesn't degenerate to above descriptors - gratuitous, gory, depraved, etc.).

I don't object to on-screen violence, either, but just to play Devil's advocate...

Is it possible that only watching movies portraying violence in the struggle between good and evil might condition the mind to believe that all violence is between good and evil? And in almost any violent situation, both sides are likely to think they are in the right, are they not?

[DH]

A re-telling of Moby D!ck in a fantastic setting? Been there, done that. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan even has all the best lines from Moby D!ck in it, paraphrased a bit for the setting;

Khan: I'll chase him 'round the moons of Nibia and 'round the Antares Maelstrom and 'round perdition's flames before I give him up!

True! And the Moby D!ck theme is revisited in ST: First Contact, as well.

[silvermoon383]

True! And the Moby D!ck theme is revisited in ST: First Contact, as well.

Which got Sir Patrick Stewart a role as Ahab himself a little while later.

But anyways, after seeing the trailer I have to ask the question too: What's all the fuss about? Newspaper ads show more skin.

Now granted, this is a bit of a non-issue for me. Since I don't live in Utah the only way I'll be able to see this movie is if one of the Temple bookstores I go to (they're not official Church bookstores) happens to have a copy of the DVD.

[nicolasconnault]

Yes, well. "We dream on a budget," don't we?

I hope it's better than the trailer makes it out to be.

First, I suspect that the film will have more than "two seconds" of nudity. I am accustomed to such things from your average movie director, but not from Ryan Little.

Second, I think on-screen nudity and sexuality is a "bright line rule" that oughtn't be crossed by LDS filmmakers. Same with profanity.

But I don't object to on-screen "violence" per se. It is a qualitatively different aspect of the human condition. I won't go to a movie with gratuitous violence (Pulp Fiction or Reservoir Dogs) or gory violence (pretty much any modern horror movie) or depraved violence (Hound Dog). But violence depicting the struggle between good and evil (Star Wars. Lord of the Rings, The Great Escape, etc.) or even adventurous violence (Moby Dlck, Indiana Jones, etc.) is just hunky dory by me (as long as it doesn't degenerate to above descriptors - gratuitous, gory, depraved, etc.).

Thanks,

-Smac

That's a nice standard, but it's a bit different from what is found in "Strength for Youth":

Do not attend, view, or participate in entertainment that is vulgar, immoral, violent, or pornographic in any way. Do not participate in entertainment that in any way presents immorality or violent behavior as acceptable.

Depictions of violence often glamorize vicious behavior. They offend the Spirit and make you less able to respond to others in a sensitive, caring way. They contradict the Savior

[nicolasconnault]

Ultimately it isn't about how much skin is shown, how much profanity is uttered or how much violence is portrayed. The issue is about how it affects you spiritually. Are the feelings and emotions this movie engender within you compatible with feelings of the Spirit? Inspiration and experience will help decide whether watching such and such movie is the best use of your time and money, even though the movie may not be "bad" as such.

Ratings are just very broad guidelines, and I find them increasingly unreliable. The counsel to not watch R-rated movies is old and only applied to the US membership anyway (there are no such ratings in France, for example). I've seen PG-13 movies that made me feel very uncomfortable, and R-rated movies that were fine but probably a little too scary for kids.

[cinepro]

Ultimately it isn't about how much skin is shown, how much profanity is uttered or how much violence is portrayed. The issue is about how it affects you spiritually. Are the feelings and emotions this movie engender within you compatible with feelings of the Spirit? Inspiration and experience will help decide whether watching such and such movie is the best use of your time and money, even though the movie may not be "bad" as such.

Ratings are just very broad guidelines, and I find them increasingly unreliable. The counsel to not watch R-rated movies is old and only applied to the US membership anyway (there are no such ratings in France, for example). I've seen PG-13 movies that made me feel very uncomfortable, and R-rated movies that were fine but probably a little too scary for kids.

Last week, our Elder's quorum lesson was focused on a talk from 1994 that specifically told us to not watch R-rated movies. I'm extremely familiar with all the arguments against not watching any R-rated movies (having made them myself), but I have to admit I was a little surprised to see the Church still teaching it regularly. It's especially common in "The New Era", the magazine for teens.

Of course, the Church has taken great strides to "universalize" its message and make the magazines more applicable to members all over the world in recent years, so this month's New Era has the following "question": "My family watches movies with mature ratings. Spending time with them is important, so how do I explain why I don't watch those movies?"

The answer includes the comment that "putting God first in your life will bless your family", so the youth of the Church are being taught that "not watching movies with mature ratings" = "putting God first in your life".

[frankenstein]

The issue is about how it affects you spiritually. Are the feelings and emotions this movie engender within you compatible with feelings of the Spirit? Inspiration and experience will help decide whether watching such and such movie is the best use of your time and money, even though the movie may not be "bad" as such.

Ratings are just very broad guidelines, and I find them increasingly unreliable. The counsel to not watch R-rated movies is old and only applied to the US membership anyway (there are no such ratings in France, for example). I've seen PG-13 movies that made me feel very uncomfortable, and R-rated movies that were fine but probably a little too scary for kids.

excellent point.

if one went strictly by the For Strenght of Youth standard, one could scarcely view anything, or read anything including the scriptures.

as for "ratings" what most people do not realize is that "ratings" are first determined by survey. If a particular issue is covered in a survey the ratings board votes on what they think the collective of parents would want. So in the end the ratings are not that all the indicative of much.

[Stargazer]

Last week, our Elder's quorum lesson was focused on a talk from 1994 that specifically told us to not watch R-rated movies. I'm extremely familiar with all the arguments against not watching any R-rated movies (having made them myself), but I have to admit I was a little surprised to see the Church still teaching it regularly. It's especially common in "The New Era", the magazine for teens.

Of course, the Church has taken great strides to "universalize" its message and make the magazines more applicable to members all over the world in recent years, so this month's New Era has the following "question": "My family watches movies with mature ratings. Spending time with them is important, so how do I explain why I don't watch those movies?"

The answer includes the comment that "putting God first in your life will bless your family", so the youth of the Church are being taught that "not watching movies with mature ratings" = "putting God first in your life".

What's this "mature ratings" thing, anyway? This presumably means those movies starting at "PG", so we can only watch G movies? Oh, please. Freaking heck, I remember studying Shakespeare's Henry IV, Part 1, in high school. Sexual innuendo, drinking, and other mature material would definitely put that into PG-13 territory. So what are we supposed to do if our high schooler's teacher notifies us parents that our kid will be studying this play? Request that our kid be excused? And then there's Henry IV, Part 2, with extended bloody battle scenes. Not to mention Hamlet, Poe's "The Cask of Amontillado" (hey, walling your old buddy up in your basement should garner a G-rating, don't you think?), and Biblical Judah going about when he spies a prostitute, takes advantage of the spare moment, then later finds out the apparent lady of the night is his own daughter-in-law! If they made a movie out of the Bible it would definitely be rated R, possibly NC-17.

I am considerably annoyed at this no R-rated movie shtick.

[nicolasconnault]

What's this "mature ratings" thing, anyway? This presumably means those movies starting at "PG", so we can only watch G movies? Oh, please. Freaking heck, I remember studying Shakespeare's Henry IV, Part 1, in high school. Sexual innuendo, drinking, and other mature material would definitely put that into PG-13 territory. So what are we supposed to do if our high schooler's teacher notifies us parents that our kid will be studying this play? Request that our kid be excused? And then there's Henry IV, Part 2, with extended bloody battle scenes. Not to mention Hamlet, Poe's "The Cask of Amontillado" (hey, walling your old buddy up in your basement should garner a G-rating, don't you think?), and Biblical Judah going about when he spies a prostitute, takes advantage of the spare moment, then later finds out the apparent lady of the night is his own daughter-in-law! If they made a movie out of the Bible it would definitely be rated R, possibly NC-17.

I am considerably annoyed at this no R-rated movie shtick.

I'm sure that at least some righteous children of Israel were considerably annoyed at the rigidity of the law of Moses.

Regarding the violence of the scriptures, I think it's an overrated argument. Sure, there are some bits of violence, but the vast majority (I'll hazard to say around 90%) of the scriptures has no violence whatsoever. Even if you decided to make a movie out of the 10% that is violence, you could do it in a way that doesn't offend the Spirit but teaches important eternal truths.

Violence is not a simple uni-dimensional construct, varying just in intensity. It can be portrayed in many different ways, depending on the intentions of the film-makers. It can be intended to illustrate, to shock, to entertain, to excite, to teach or for artistic expression. Some of the most disturbing movies don't actually display graphic violence, but they frame it in a way that stimulates our imagination beyond the boundaries of psychological comfort.

[Stargazer]

I'm sure that at least some righteous children of Israel were considerably annoyed at the rigidity of the law of Moses.

Here's where I get off this bus: to start with, we are using a judgment call by a group that has no interest in morality, per se, other than doing something like watching a movie and counting how many instances of explicit language occur. A PG-13 rated movie may contain "...up to four uses of explicit language...". So, if I have two movies, which differ only to the extent that one has four "...uses of explicit language..." and the other has five. The one with five gets the R rating, the one with four, gets PG-13.

And what about those movies that came out before the rating system? I was watching this one flick on TV a few years ago, and suddenly this one couple start having sex, which I would have taken as an R-rating characteristic. But it wasn't rated, having come out before the rating system. Does this mean that it's OK to watch?

Three movies:

• "Saving Private Ryan" is rated R.
• "The Longest Day" is rated G
• "A Bridge Too Far" is rated PG.

Now, these three films cover essentially the same material, which is to say: war violence. The reason SPR gets an R rating is because of the use of the "F" word (definitiely more than 4 occurrences). Now, isn't that amazing! I suppose SPR is a bit more graphic in portraying the violence, too -- but shouldn't movies be valued higher for showing how utterly horrible war is, rather than somewhat glossing over the horror, like TLD and ABTF do? But TLD gets a G?!?! Suitable for kindergartners.

I am quite able to figure out what is an unsuitable movie for me. I don't need stupid letters.