Trib Article Re R-Rated Movies

[smac97]

‘Mormon Land’: Why all R-rated movies need not scare away faithful Latter-day Saints

Quote

Church leaders have warned about such films, but was it ever an actual policy?

This article is worthwhile: R-rated movies: What have the prophets actually said?

Key bit:

Quote

In addition to not judging, we need to be careful not to put words into the mouths of our leaders, sometimes spreading “false doctrine” by incorrectly citing religious authorities as the source of cultural taboos we follow like doctrine. In fact, Elder Lynn G. Robbins illustrated this in a 2013 BYU devotional, using Ezra Taft Benson’s remarks on R-rated movies.

“In 1986, President Ezra Taft Benson warned members of the danger of anything ‘R-rated’ or beyond. The members thought he had drawn a line. I know that because I have heard many members of the Church say, ‘Oh, we can watch that movie. It’s only a PG-13. The prophet gave us permission.’ They don’t say that last part, but that is what they are thinking, because they thought he posted a speed limit, so to speak.”

He then illustrated the point with an analogy:

“Let’s assume that the two ends of the basketball court here at the Marriott Center represent the two extremes of movies that Hollywood produces. We will have this end area at my extreme right represent G-rated movies. At the other extreme to my left is what Hollywood calls ‘adult entertainment.’ In between the two extremes, the MPAA gives movies ratings of PG and PG-13. We will have this pulpit represent R-rated, then NC-17, and adults only. In between the two extremes, where do we draw the line over which it would be dangerous to cross?

“It is risky for the Church to draw a line. If the speed on the freeway is 65 miles per hour, how fast will people drive? Well, they will feel free to drive as fast as the limit. If the Church were to draw a line with movies, that would be like giving permission to watch everything up to the line. President Gordon B. Hinckley never drew a line. Neither has President Thomas S. Monson. But the prophets have taught us principles.”

Hmm.

Quote

And are there some R-rated and TV-MA shows the adult members should watch?

I'm not sure what "should watch" means.

Passion of the Christ, Hacksaw Ridge, Shawshank Redemption, Band of Brothers, and Schindler's List are some that come to mind.

Quote

Devout Latter-day Saints don’t, or at least think they shouldn’t, watch R-rated movies.

This belief has permeated their religious culture for decades. And while top leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have warned about such films, there has never been a general proscription against viewing them.

In fact, a popular Latter-day Saint blogger recently argued that some R-rated and TV-MA productions are worth watching, listing titles from “Saving Private Ryan” and “Marriage Story” to “The Passion of the Christ” and “Good Will Hunting.” He stated that swearing off such movies can lead to “consuming disproportionately infantile content.”

I think there are not a lot of movies that reach and R Rating or more that fall into the "should" category.  Most movies, after all, are just entertainment.

The above link: The reel rule about R-rated movies

Quote

The counsel seems clear in some corners of Latter-day Saint culture: Faithful members don’t — OK, shouldn’t — watch R-rated movies.

And while top church leaders have warned about such films, there is no general proscription against viewing them.

Good thing, argues Times and Seasons blogger Stephen Cranney, because not all R-rated and TV-MA flicks should be off-limits.

Latter-day Saints are “rightly concerned about a diet of dark, heavy material,” he writes, but “by not sometimes including R-rated material in our media diets, we run the risk of not having access to potentially moving or insightful content [or] consuming disproportionately infantile content.”

Not much of a risk, really.

And with Vidangel and editing software, the options become more feasible.

Quote

Cranney doesn’t contend, of course, that anything goes in the viewing choices of Latter-day Saints — “there are still some genres,” he states, “that are bright red lines for me” — but “when done with care and caution, incorporating some select R-rated movies into a media diet can be beneficial for one spiritually, emotionally and intellectually.”

He then lists dozens of “impactful gems” that are worth watching, including “Saving Private Ryan,” “Marriage Story,” “Breaking Bad,” “Schindler’s List,” “The Passion of the Christ,” “The Shawshank Redemption,” “Silver Linings Playbook” and “Good Will Hunting.”

Which R-rated or TV-MA productions would you add? And which do you think Latter-day Saints not only could watch (without any remorse) but indeed should watch?

Good questions.  Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

So I should be discriminating as to which NC-17 movies I watch?

Will do.

[MustardSeed]

What LDS people “should and shouldn’t watch” to me feels super controlling.  
 

[LoudmouthMormon]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

And with Vidangel and editing software, the options become more feasible.

Oh wow - Vidangel really is back as of 2022!  I thought they had been sued into bankruptcy!

From the Wiki article:

Quote

In 2016, it was sued by several major Hollywood studios who said the original method it used to filter objectionable content from movies, which involved decrypting DVDs and Blu-rays, violated copyright protections. VidAngel fought the lawsuit for several years, asserting its method was legal under the Family Movie Act. It developed a new model based on streaming whereby it filters a video stream from Netflix and Amazon. The company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2017 as a legal strategy to protect the company against the lawsuit and allow it to reorganize its business around the streaming service. It continued to operate during the bankruptcy process. In 2020, VidAngel reached a settlement with the four studios, agreeing to pay $9.9 million to the studios, and emerged from bankruptcy. The settlement prohibits VidAngel from streaming content from the four studios which sued it, but it can stream content from other studios. In 2022, VidAngel relaunched under new ownership.

Its current model is based entirely on streaming, filtering movies and TV shows from Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, and Apple TV+.

 

I haven't looked since 2017, but this was possible back then: 

Imagine A Clockwork Orange viewing experience with no swearing, violence, or nudity.  Sort of like a ward building with no hymnbooks, sacrament meeting, or members.

[bluebell]

I like being able to look up why a movie or TV show is rated R or TV-MA. Sometimes, often, it’s because of violence language sex/nudity. But there have been times when it is our because it’s an adult theme. Those are the ones that I usually feel comfortable watching.

And be honest sometimes I watch some shows that I shouldn’t. In general, I steer clear of sex and nudity, but I have a threshold for swearing that is probably higher than it should be. Same with violence. I don’t watch stuff with gratuitous violence in general, but some violence, like war violence, I will.

I don’t really enjoy infantile entertainment in general. Of course, there are some shows that are just cute and fun and entertaining and that the whole family can watch, and those are fun. But usually when I watch something, I want to feel something real from it.  And I struggle to feel real things from movies and TV shows that scrub out and sanitize real life.

[JLHPROF]

Isn't this approach a bit backwards?

In other words does it really matter what Church leaders banned or spoke out against and what they didn't?  Does it matter where THEY draw the line?

I thought the goal was to become more like Christ not simply to follow the organizational expectations.

Sorry, but "the Prophets never explicitly said we shouldn't" seems like a pretty weak excuse for watching sex, nudity, graphic violence, or foul language for entertainment.  R vs PG-13 also completely misses the point.

What would Jesus watch if he was in your home?  We answer it for ourselves.

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

What LDS people “should and shouldn’t watch” to me feels super controlling.  
 

I was rolling my eyes up in Canada when my husband was watching stuff he would not have watched in the US, but at least it got him to think more about content when making choices than labels other people made.  By the time we moved back he was ignoring the US rating system…for good reason imo.  That it’s okay to have some swear a couple of times before drawing a line is ridiculous imo.  Either take it seriously or forget it.  That is like saying one full frontal exposure is fine, but two or three or whatever suddenly makes the film inappropriate….as if one exposure is less noticeable when it is actually much more noticeable when it happens and turns swearing into something that gets attention.

[pogi]

Blood Diamond is one that I think is worth watching.  My wife and I watched it before we were married and we could not in good conscience purchase a real diamond for her wedding ring after watching it.  Fictional characters but it is based on real events.   I understand that there is a certification process for diamonds now that the World Diamond Council (if you can trust them) certify that they are mostly not blood diamonds on the market now. 

Edited April 26, 2023 by pogi

[Calm]

32 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I like being able to look up why a movie or TV show is rated R or TV-MA. Sometimes, often, it’s because of violence language sex/nudity. But there have been times when it is our because it’s an adult theme. Those are the ones that I usually feel comfortable watching.

And be honest sometimes I watch some shows that I shouldn’t. In general, I steer clear of sex and nudity, but I have a threshold for swearing that is probably higher than it should be. Same with violence. I don’t watch stuff with gratuitous violence in general, but some violence, like war violence, I will.

I don’t really enjoy infantile entertainment in general. Of course, there are some shows that are just cute and fun and entertaining and that the whole family can watch, and those are fun. But usually when I watch something, I want to feel something real from it.  And I struggle to feel real things from movies and TV shows that scrub out and sanitize real life.

I can watch unrealistic violence where no one obviously suffers (martial arts shows), the skill of it…like watching ballet with blood; but if there is wallowing in the gore or abuse it disgusts me.  I can’t watch bullying or anything that degrades someone for very long, especially if for humor.  I tend to avoid sitcoms for that reason.  Parents being abusive, teens being manipulative of each other…ugh.  And yet crime shows tend to fascinate me, the puzzle solving aspect and the science (I have to check if the gadgets and tests are realistic, get turned off with sci-fi presented as fact), watching the leads trying to figure out how the criminal thinks.  I will fast forward over the crime if they show it though.  I don’t watch the torture, the suffering or fear.

I can’t watch war films unless really unrealistic because  people do suffer like that and I find war itself disgusting because of what happens to cause them as much as the suffering, too often needless.  War is wholesale abuse for me.  I would prefer to watch a documentary rather than a drama if necessary to learn about, I don’t want my emotions being played with by the music and camera angles, by using beautiful, idealized actors, by exaggeration or downplaying, etc.  

My reactions probably aren’t that consistent on the surface, but I think if it engages my mind, if I am focusing more on how something is done rather than getting emotionally entangled, it affects me quite differently. The first energizes, the latter feels sordid if there is darkness.  There is lots of G and PG stuff I won’t watch.

Edited April 26, 2023 by Calm

[bluebell]

26 minutes ago, Calm said:

I was rolling my eyes up in Canada when my husband was watching stuff he would not have watched in the US, but at least it got him to think more about content when making choices than labels other people made.  By the time we moved back he was ignoring the US rating system…for good reason imo.  That it’s okay to have some swear a couple of times before drawing a line is ridiculous imo.  Either take it seriously or forget it.  That is like saying one full frontal exposure is fine, but two or three or whatever suddenly makes the film inappropriate….as if one exposure is less noticeable when it is actually much more noticeable when it happens and turns swearing into something that gets attention.

It largely depends on context. Schindler’s list has full frontal nudity for both men and women, but I wouldn’t hesitate to let my teenagers watch that film, for example. It also has a couple of scenes where women’s breasts are shown that I always fast forward when watching it with my teens. Because I don’t think those scenes are appropriate while the other scenes I do.

For me, it’s not the body parts, or the words, or the blood that make something acceptable or not, but it’s the story that’s being told, and what is necessary to tell the story and what isn’t.

Edited April 26, 2023 by bluebell

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

I can watch unrealistic violence where no one obviously suffers (martial arts shows), the skill of it…like watching ballet with blood; but if there is wallowing in the gore or abuse it disgusts me.  I can’t watch bullying or anything that degrades someone for very long, especially if for humor.  I tend to avoid sitcoms for that reason.  Parents being abusive, teens being manipulative of each other…ugh.  And yet crime shows tend to fascinate me, the puzzle solving aspect and the science (I have to check if the gadgets and tests are realistic, get turned off with sci-fi presented as fact).  I can’t watch war films unless really unrealistic because  people do suffer like that and I find war itself disgusting because of what happens to cause them as much as the suffering, too often needless.  War is wholesale abuse.  I would prefer to watch a documentary rather than a drama if necessary to learn about though, I don’t want my emotions being played with by the music and camera angles, by using beautiful, idealized actors, etc.  

My reactions probably aren’t that consistent on the surface, but I think if it engages my mind, if I am focusing more on how something is done rather than getting emotionally entangled, it affects me quite differently. The first energizes, the latter feels sordid if there is darkness.

I think you’ve perfectly illustrated another reason that lines can’t be drawn on this issue. And that’s because we’re all so different. And how we react to things and how we internalize them and what they mean to us and how they affect us later is also different.

Some things the human body almost always reacts similarly to, but others, it just depends on our personality and our beliefs, and even just our imagination or lack there of.

I can’t watch any kind of a horror film that has anything demonic in it, for example, even if it’s not rated R. They freak me out, I will have trouble sleeping, and I will otherwise feel like I am inviting dark spirits into my home and into my life. My husband on the other hand—who has the same spiritual beliefs as I do—finds them so incredibly stupid and idiotic that he refuses to watch them because they are too laughable.

 

Edited April 26, 2023 by bluebell

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Schindler’s list has full frontal nudity for both men and women, but I wouldn’t hesitate to let my teenagers watch that film, for example. It also has a couple of scenes where women’s breasts are shown that I always fast forward when watching it with my teens. Because I don’t think those scenes are appropriate while the other scenes I do.

I have very little problem with nudity actually as long as not sexualized or distorted.

[Calm]

32 minutes ago, bluebell said:

My husband on the other hand—who has the same spiritual beliefs as I do—finds them so incredibly stupid and idiotic that he refuses to watch them because they are too laughable.

I get into them lots of time if they are based on mythology or create their own, but the shows that revel in the horror, repulsiveness side of it, no thanks.  The horror lite probably can manage.  Just make sure the demons are interesting looking and not gross, lol.

[blackstrap]

I have a hard time watching action movies when the laws of physics are suspended or completely erased. 

[JustAnAustralian]

If members don't want anything remotely iffy in their movies, they're going to need to stick with the Teletubbies.

Take the fun family movie "Rat Race", the US rating according to IMDB is PG 13, it got that rating for "sexual references, crude humor, partial nudity and language". Is that enough to stop people watching it?

What about Shrek? "Rated PG for mild language and some crude humor"

Even a G rated movie can have iffy bits eg cleopatra (rated G in 1963) Nudity, violence, drinking https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056937/parentalguide?ref_=tt_stry_pg 

 

What goes into ratings over time, so even if there was a rating cut-off, it wouldn't be consistent.

Edited April 26, 2023 by JustAnAustralian

[InCognitus]

54 minutes ago, blackstrap said:

I have a hard time watching action movies when the laws of physics are suspended or completely erased. 

Unless the suspension of physics is important to the plot.  I'm thinking of the movie, The Matrix (for example).  That's one movie that was rated R, and I've seen PG-13 movies that are worse than that, or even on TV now days.  

[MiserereNobis]

I can't comment on this from the LDS point-of-view, obviously, but here are a couple of my thoughts on the topic in whatever order.

1) Our culture seems to judge depictions of sex in film more harshly than violence.

2) Female nudity is tolerated more than male nudity.

3) While I understand that using MPAA ratings as a basis on which to watch something makes it simpler, it seems problematic to use that as a gauge for morality, because 1) the MPAA is not a moral/religious group, 2) the MPAA is American, and 3) the MPAA guidelines constantly change.

4) Traditionally, Catholicism has made a distinction between vulgarity and profanity. The former means a crude reference to body parts and functions, the later means terms that are blasphemous and disrespect deity. It's interesting that our culture thinks vulgarity is worse than profanity when it ranks "bad words."

5) Films with adult themes do not necessarily need violence and/or sex. Likewise, violence and/or sex does not necessarily mean the film is dealing with adult themes.

6) There are most definitely films with adult themes that require violence and/or sex. This means that the violence and/or sex is not gratuitous, but integral. To me, this is key: is it gratuitous or integral?

7) I "enjoy" (trying to think of the right word here) certain types of war films, the films that show me the hell that war is. Obvious examples are Saving Private Ryan, The Thin Red Line, Band of Brothers, The Pacific (ok, I clearly have a predisposition to WWII history). The terrible realistic violence is so integral here -- this is what war is like. Also, films like Schindler's List that depict to us the horrors of the holocaust, or any film that the horror and gruesomeness is key to its message are likewise important. Films about slavery or the civil rights movement also apply here. To see and viscerally experience the horror gives us motivation to keep it from happening again.

8 ) What the heck is Breaking Bad doing on that list of "must watch" shows? I mean, I enjoyed it and it made some good points, but... it was ultimately entertainment, not social commentary. There are far better films to watch with an R or TV-MA rating if one wants to delve into the issues of drugs.

9) I'm channeling my inner Smac making a post with a numbered list  

[MiserereNobis]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

What would Jesus watch if he was in your home?  We answer it for ourselves.

This is my pet peeve, but I don't like the idea behind any version of "What Would Jesus Do." I understand that it can be helpful to imagine Him and it is most praiseworthy to emulate His actions, but... I don't know what Jesus would do. He was radically unorthodox and unpredictable in the culture in which He was born. Would He also be such in our culture? I have no idea what Jesus would watch if He was in my home. I feel like WWJD allows us to project our ideas of God and Holiness onto an abstract Jesus and then proclaim that as God's will.

I'm secretly hoping that Jesus would ask me to toss on the Grateful Dead's 1989 run at Alpine Valley as documented in "Downhill From Here" and ask me to turn it way up. For those that are so inclined to my vision of a Divine Film, enjoy:

 

[CV75]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

‘Mormon Land’: Why all R-rated movies need not scare away faithful Latter-day Saints

This article is worthwhile: R-rated movies: What have the prophets actually said?

Key bit:

Hmm.

I'm not sure what "should watch" means.

Passion of the Christ, Hacksaw Ridge, Shawshank Redemption, Band of Brothers, and Schindler's List are some that come to mind.

I think there are not a lot of movies that reach and R Rating or more that fall into the "should" category.  Most movies, after all, are just entertainment.

The above link: The reel rule about R-rated movies

Not much of a risk, really.

And with Vidangel and editing software, the options become more feasible.

Good questions.  Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

R-rated films and the like have been around for ages; as a teenagers in the 70s, my father took us to see "Frenzy", "Dillinger" and "The Exorcist" without batting an eye. I think this line of counsel/guidance came out in the 1980s and still consider it generally sound. I am happy to have the edited versions available on many TV stations and with the more recent filtering services. I might not otherwise have had the chance to enjoy Pineapple Express.

Personally, I am repulsed by blasphemy and profanity, even when used in proper context, but not so much by non-gratuitous nudity and sex scenes, though I have my limit there too. To each their own. And when it comes to parental "guidance", it seems to be that the need to satisfy the parent's need for entertainment is really the unspoken priority.

So for me, the issue of what I invite into my mind is secondary. I've often told people that I am not so desperate for entertainment that I will seek out an unedited/unfiltered R-rated movie, sit there and watch whatever is suggested, or not wait until I can catch an edited or filtered version. I think it is more a matter of "life is too short" and "good/better/best."

[The Nehor]

Probably best to avoid R-rated movies. Watching them can lead to an unhealthy interest in necking and once you go down that path the next thing you know you are getting invited to petting parties.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

This is my pet peeve, but I don't like the idea behind any version of "What Would Jesus Do." I understand that it can be helpful to imagine Him and it is most praiseworthy to emulate His actions, but... I don't know what Jesus would do. He was radically unorthodox and unpredictable in the culture in which He was born. Would He also be such in our culture? I have no idea what Jesus would watch if He was in my home. I feel like WWJD allows us to project our ideas of God and Holiness onto an abstract Jesus and then proclaim that as God's will.

I'm secretly hoping that Jesus would ask me to toss on the Grateful Dead's 1989 run at Alpine Valley as documented in "Downhill From Here" and ask me to turn it way up. For those that are so inclined to my vision of a Divine Film, enjoy:

 

I agree with your sentiment but not your application.  If God can't look upon sin with the least degree of allowance why would we think Christ is good watching adultery or murder as entertainment?

I don't personally hit that standard or even come close but I'm also not pretending that it's fine with the Lord if when I choose sinful indulgences.  One day hopefully I'll stop.  We may not know what Jesus would do in every situation but I'm pretty positive it's not choosing corruption.

 

[The Nehor]

7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I agree with your sentiment but not your application.  If God can't look upon sin with the least degree of allowance why would we think Christ is good watching adultery or murder as entertainment?

I don't personally hit that standard or even come close but I'm also not pretending that it's fine with the Lord if when I choose sinful indulgences.  One day hopefully I'll stop.  We may not know what Jesus would do in every situation but I'm pretty positive it's not choosing corruption.

 

If Jesus didn’t want us to vicariously experience killing and adultery in story he probably should do an edit of the Bible and the Book of Mormon.

[InCognitus]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

If God can't look upon sin with the least degree of allowance why would we think Christ is good watching adultery or murder as entertainment?

I get the point you are making.  But "watching adultery or murder" may not be just for "entertainment".  Obviously it depends on the reason why those things are in the film (and how explicit they are portrayed), but sometimes it is essential to the story telling.  Take the Bible for example.  It is full of examples of adultery and murder, but is that "entertainment"?  I personally enjoy reading the Bible.  Is that  considered "entertainment"?   The lessons I learn from reading it are what I value.  Couldn't the same be true for a movie under the right circumstances?

[InCognitus]

15 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

If Jesus didn’t want us to vicariously experience killing and adultery in story he probably should do an edit of the Bible and the Book of Mormon.

You beat me to it.

Edited April 27, 2023 by InCognitus

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

I get the point you are making.  But "watching adultery or murder" may not be just for "entertainment".  Obviously it depends on the reason why those things are in the film (and how explicit they are portrayed), but sometimes it is essential to the story telling.  Take the Bible for example.  It is full of examples of adultery and murder, but is that "entertainment"?  I personally enjoy reading the Bible.  Is that  considered "entertainment"?   The lessons I learn from reading it are what I value.  Couldn't the same be true for a movie under the right circumstances?

Of course.  That's why I'm against arbitrary checklists like R is bad/PG-13 is ok, or the prophets never said we shouldn't.

The gospel is about moving us towards God, Christ filling the gap we cannot ourselves.

Everyone has to figure out what is acceptable before the Lord and choose to embrace or reject each situation.  That includes all entertainment choices.  But to choose to embrace sinful content because it's not expressly forbidden is just widening the gap.