23 Comments

1. Steve, you have invoked one of the perennial issues of the bloggernacle – rated R movies. You will find that there is virtually no sympathy for an overarching ban on all rated R movies in the ‘nacle.

   I really liked the prologue in the latter editions of Fahrenheit 451. Bradbury basically tells all those offended by his work to go make theirs instead. I agree very much with him – editing media is censorship (regardless how frequently Hollywood does it to make a buck). If one doesn’t want to watch something (which should be a matter of personal choice) one shouldn’t.

   Comment by J. Stapley — 2/2/2005 @ 11:14 pm

2. J,
   Certainly I figured that the ban wouldn’t be negotiable, which is why I postulated it rather than putting it on the block. I will say that I think the word censorship less horrifying than some, though it has become a real label of primary potency. I think the issues are complicated. Bradbury in his prologue is lamenting that someone wanted to publish his work in an edited form, if I remember. I say, hey, they can always ask, and he can always turn them down. The artist has to weigh the benefits of reaching an audience versus their own artistic designs, and if a publisher has business or moral concerns, that’s their business. But, of course, I’m getting myself already into the issue I didn’t want to discuss at length.
   Wht really interests me is what drives the editing industry. Why don’t we, as a people (I never saw a cleanflicks in Indiana) just do as Jonathan says and not wathc htem if we don’t want to see them?

   Comment by S. Hancock — 2/2/2005 @ 11:45 pm

3. People watch edited movies for the same reason they watch regular movies – they hear they’re good movies and they want to see them. Cleanflicks is a way for people to see movies they would have normally chosen to go see in the theater but chose not to purely because of the rating.

   Speaking of Cleanflicks, I delight in pointing out its many problems. Having seen many Cleanflicks films and their complete originals, I have begun to notice its method in editing. As far as violence goes, they will edit out only more severe portions of violence. There are many Cleanflicks films that would still recieve an R by the MPAA if it came out as such in the theater. It’s probably because the editors simply don’t know where the line is. Funny that so many that would object to Rs categorically still find no problem with watching these.

   On the other hand, when it comes to sexuality, Cleanflicks will not only cut anything that is remotely R, but it will cut out the vast majority of PG-13 sexuality/sexual humor as well. It appears that it is this sort of thing that most members consider “inappropriate.” The Cleanflicks version of Amelie even cut a brief non-sexual scene of a woman in her slip that probably would have made it onto a PG film.

   What I’m most excited about is seeing how Cleanflicks is going to edit the recent Vera Drake. The film is R because of its troubling depiction of a good woman who instigates abortions, but there is no graphic content to speak of. There is absolutely nothing to edit. Are they just going to put it out as it is and tell people it’s edited? I figure they’ll find something to cut so they can actually say it’s “edited”, but it presents an interesting problem for those who say R’s are unconditionally unacceptable.

   Comment by Godot — 2/3/2005 @ 1:45 am

4. Doesn’t network TV edit movies? I’ve heard many a good Mormon say “I’ll wait ’til it’s on TV” when it comes to R-ratings.

   By the way, I know you didn’t want to discuss this, but seeing as more than half of the church is not American, how would you translate the “R-rating rule” (if there is such a thing) to them? R-rating is an American rating. Other countries have other systems, or none at all. R-rating means nothing, which is why it has been dropped from the Strength of Youth.

   Comment by Ronan — 2/3/2005 @ 5:28 am

5. R-rated in the USA often translates to a PG-13 in Canada. So, should I refuse to watch American R-rated movies or Canadian R-rated movies?

   What I would be interested in is seeing a comparison of statements regarding R-rated movies in the last ten years with statements for the ten years previous to that. I would be interested in seeing any change in the frequency of the “R-rated” declaration. My informal studies seem to point out that the last ten years have far less occurrences, and the Brethren are focusing now more on content and/or generic words like ‘unwholesome’ or ‘unclean’.

   Comment by Kim Siever — 2/3/2005 @ 8:28 am

6. Kim brings up very cogent points. There is no question that there has been a wholesale deemphasis on the verbiage “rated R”. It is precisely because of the reasons both Kim and Ronan bring up.

   Steve: “What really interests me is what drives the editing industry. Why don’t we, as a people (I never saw a cleanflicks in Indiana) just do as Jonathan says and not watch them if we don’t want to see them?”

   I imagine it is because they can be fun/cool/interesting/beautiful/moving. A corollary to Steve’s question is why there is not such a movement in other media. Is it because we assume that if you have the patience to read a book, you have the capacity to deal with difficult or objectionable imagery? Or is it because there is no rating system on Books. What about rated M video games (my Elder’s quorum is addicted to Halo 2).

   Comment by J. Stapley — 2/3/2005 @ 9:46 am

7. It’s worth remembering that the movie rating system is designed as (or at least held out as) a system to give parents some notice of the content of movies they take the kids to. “R” doesn’t mean no kids under 17, it means something like “only admitted with a parent, guardian, or other responsible adult.” The assumption is that adults can attend any movie (regardless of the content) and not be morally harmed (or, that if they are harmed or offended, it’s their own business).

   The Internet has solved the problem, I think, by providing many user-driven rating services that provide specific information on the details of every individual movie, right up to which profane words are used and how many times, etc. Concerned adults can then look up movies they are interested in and avoid those with content they deem offensive. Seems like a cheap, effective solution that avoids some of the editing problem.

   Comment by Dave — 2/3/2005 @ 1:18 pm

8. J,
   I also think that the editing industry tends to provide a feeling of security. On the one hand, it lets those who want to watch R rated movies hand over their sense of responsibility to the editors who they feel will certainly have sanitized the movie. I personally don’t watch Rs on TV or in cleanflicks versions (with the notable exceptions of The Matrix and tombstone, which I felt a real pressure to see, in line with my comments above). I do it because I don’t mind giving up the few movies in the categories of worth for the multitude of thigns I avoid. I have enough difficulty trying to judge from trailers and/or the box or the ratings and content guides what I want to watch in the PG and PG-13 categories. Where R movies are concerned, and with a lot of the PG-13 movies, I just haven’t found that editing makes the movies that much different in terms of the values expressed. You can’t make a movie that perpetuates the wrong sort of attitudes good by editing it. To the credit of Cleanflicks, the do remind people of this at the beginning of each film, and my local store simply puts films up as is if they feel they don’t need editing (they aren’t really cleanflicks, they just buy movies from them). It will be interesting to see with the movie godot mentions.
   On the other hand, I do rent many PG and PG-13 movies at cleanflicks if I think they are bound to be films I would rent elsewhere anyway (I don’t feel they always are) because I have so often been fooled. I rent a movie not expecting obscenity, nudity, graphic violence, whatever, and then there are things that were unannounced on the covers, unexpected given the genre, diredctor, actors, or whatnot, and I don’t want to have to deal with bringing home a movie I thought would be good only to find I don’t feel I can have it around. In this case, I don’t feel too bad because I feel like I should get what was advertised. Media sneak attacks I have no sympathy for, and I think they are more common these days.
   Of course I do still cringe once in a while that someone had to scan these films very carefully to edit them down to the frame so that I coudl avoid whatever it is I am avoiding that I don’t even know about.
   As far as other media, I do feel that there are lots of other media that need to be considered. Books often become an issue in my line of work (I’m an English Professor), and I feel that there are people who are too comfortable reading anything if it’s in a book (or assigning anything). I couldn’t stand Native Son, though I probably have colleagues that would say I’m jsut saying that because I’m not ready to face up to the issues involved. Frankly, I wouldn’t read an edited version of the book. I think as we rely too much on the movie editor, we rely too much on those who declare books “classics”, musicals or plays culturally significant, etc.
   It might seem as I say this that my attitude towards our readiness to trust others’ opinions rather than make our own flies in the face of my own policy not to watch R rated movies. I rather think of the movie counsel in the same way I think of the word of wisdom prohibition on drinking. the Lord hasn’t always forbidden drinking, but in light of the designs of evil men, he has done so in our age. He has taken out of our hands that decision, not because we wouldn’t be able in some positions to make the decision wisely, but because the deceptive capabilities of those in charge of marketing, distributing, filming, etc (not all of them, but enough to make it hard to judge) are too great. I don’t go see R rated movies because I can’t judge them until I’ve seen them, and then it’s really too late to make a decision.
   So there you have it, my exposition on precisely the issue I didn’t want to comment on. It’s just hard to avoid, since the issues are related. I should think ahead more that way.

   Comment by Stephen Hancock — 2/3/2005 @ 1:40 pm

9. Here is an article from Sunstone about R-ratings, the MPAA, what Church leaders have said through the years, and personal responsibility.

   Comment by Heather — 2/3/2005 @ 2:36 pm

10. Heather,
    The article is interesting, but also makes the claim that “most church leaders have avoided specifically singling out movies with a certain rating.” Hatch speculates that perhaps because we believe in the no R rated movies thing that we are simply filling it in with our imaginations. While I was only able to find, as Hatch did, one prophet that has given this counsel, it has been reiterated by at least the brethren he lists (7 of them) and these I found in a quick search, many more than once.
    David B Haight
    Mark E. Peterson
    Mary Ellen Smoot
    Spencer Condie
    Bruce C. Hafen
    M Russel Ballard
    Richard G. Scott
    Until the death of Elder Haight, the two lists would have included 4 of 12 apostles. We can say what we want about the intent of those statements and whether they were meant to be blanket–some are–but I don’t know that Hatch should tell people they aren’t hearing the brethren mention “R” rated movies. It implies a degree of thoughtless crowd mentality among those who have decided not to see “R”s that is not necessarily warranted. We aren’t just making it up.
    In saying this, I don’t mean to direct my criticisms directly to Heather or stall debate on the issue. I am aware that Heather is simply passing along another opinion by a specific author. Since it ame up, I am simply giving my impression of that article, and despite my best early intentions, I would welcome comments from others about the article.

    Comment by Stephen Hancock — 2/3/2005 @ 4:21 pm

11. J. Hatch’s article makes several good points. I have to admit that I’m pretty sympathetic to it (though there is a fair amount of spin). Mormons like to focus on prohibitions, because they are easy to delineate and enforce. At the same time, I think there is some empathy could be extended instead of brandishing the position as iconoclastic virtue.

    I guess I find the whole debate myopic. This is one type of media – though as it is visual nature that puts it on the slippery slope to pornography for some (I’d argue that books can be similarly titlating). This is why editing will always be sought after among Mormons – there will always be those whose sensibilities are sensitive nudity and sexuality of any sort. If it were simply violence, I doubt we would be having this conversation.

    The bottom line: you can still go to the temple if you watch R rated movies.

    Comment by J. Stapley — 2/3/2005 @ 6:48 pm

12. Hmmm, my favorite topic. 🙂

    You can’t make a movie that perpetuates the wrong sort of attitudes good by editing it.

    I hope you weren’t suggesting that all/most R-rated movies are made with the “wrong sort of attitude” Because movies contain hard language or nudity doesn’t mean they perpetuate a “wrong” attitude. Some of the things that those movies are trying to convey would fail without those elements. There are countless R-rated movies that I have been uplifted by and am a better person for having watched them. Amelie has one of the most beautiful and inspiring messages of any movie I’ve ever seen. If the only thing someone takes away from that movie is how they were offended by the orgasm scene, then I’m sorry they can’t see past that (but who would want to, that scene was hysterical).

    Ronan and Kim make an excellent point about being foreign. I guess that’s just one of the special privileges of growing up in Europe and Canada.

    Dave, I think you’re right. The internet has basically solved that problem. There are a few sites that I go to to find out if they contain material that would offend me (note: this is different from what might offend my wife or Ronan or my bishop). Why would we leave it up to a bunch of guys in Hollywood to do what I’m much more capable of doing myself?

    Comment by Rusty — 2/3/2005 @ 10:21 pm

13. All,
    I will make a final comment and then biw out of this particular post (though you are all free to cary on the conversation. I don’t pretend that’s my prerogative), as it has become the debate I didn’t want to have, though I see in retrospect that the post was unknowingly calculated to lead us here. I just wanted to try to sum up what I take from the comments. Perhaps editing is so popular because so many can’t decide between Rusty’s take and mine. Do we feel that we are uplifted by R-rated movies (and by this I mean some subset of R-rated movies) or not. In the conflict we try to remove parts, remaking the movie (perhaps doing what artists accuse us of doing in distorting their purposes?) in order to make the answer more apparent.

    Comment by S. Hancock — 2/4/2005 @ 12:02 am

14. Sorry to have let you down Steve. The funny thing is that I don’t even watch rated R movies…for now.

    Comment by J. Stapley — 2/4/2005 @ 12:10 pm

15. My favorite article about R rated movies was penned by none other than Orson Scott Card. http://www.nauvoo.com/r-rated-movie.html

    He wrote this after being critisized for writing a review of Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ”

    Comment by Karl Butcher — 2/4/2005 @ 5:03 pm

16. Karl,
    I liked this article a lot more than the last one posted. (Oh, byt the way, I know I was going to stay out of this, btu hey, it’s Friday at 4:00.) I thought that Card focused on looking at the language and describing cogently how he viewed the comments of a lot of different leaders. He doesn’t try to discount the counsel, but explain it in the way he understands it, and he refrains from berating those who feel otherwise, though he does seem to lack faith that there are those who take the counsel differently and would be willing to let him give his interpretation peacefully, though he may have reasons for believing this, given his past experience.
    His is the most convincing argument for a limited view of wathcing some R-rated movies I’ve heard. I may not watch the movie, or other R movies, but it gives me pause which most arguments have not. I will stick by my assertion that I don’t think editing does much to change the tenor of the movie, at least in most cases. If there are exceptions to this counsel, I don’t think that editing is calculated to make those movies that are not exceptions into those that are.

    Comment by Stephen Hancock — 2/4/2005 @ 6:13 pm

17. If we are offended by sex, violence, or gross out life styles then we best quit reading the scriptures. We seem capable of “overlooking” those parts of the scriptures because of the good etc. that is there, but we get hung up on it in a movie.

    Comment by Don — 2/4/2005 @ 7:12 pm

18. Stephen Hancock said: If there are exceptions to this counsel, I don’t think that editing is calculated to make those movies that are not exceptions into those that are.

    With all due respect, I do not comprehend this statement. A movie is generally given an R by the MPAA for inclusion of very specific set of items. If those items are not there, the film would not be given a Restricted rating. Thus, by eliminating those elements, an edited version creates a product that would not recieve an R if it were submitted to the MPAA.

    Your above statements seem to suggest a belief that films rated R are such because of their “tenor”. I have discovered that there is absolutely no relationship between a film’s MPAA rating, and its overall moral tenor. If anything, I have noticed that a lot of the worst films in terms of moral tenor have been decadent PG-13 flicks aimed at the teenage audience.

    I’m not sure why it is – perhaps it’s because R films are more willing to take risks – but I have noticed that, year after year, many of the year’s most spiritually positive films have been R. And it is true again this year with The Passion and Eternal Sunshine.

    Comment by Godot — 2/6/2005 @ 6:53 am

19. I’m late getting to this but I agree with #18. There’s something wrong when members will go see Austin Powers yet avoid Passion of the Christ or Schindlers List. I think it’s pretty clear the folks in Hollywood rating the movies aren’t inspired and the system was never intended to assign “value” to movies. It’s only one tool for helping parents make decisions about which movies to see. Why do we as members try to make it into something it isn’t.

    Comment by Trenden — 2/8/2005 @ 2:51 pm

20. #19, “Why do we as members try to make it into something it isn’t?”

    I think it has to do with certain members wanting to feel better about themselves by abstaining from R rated movies and then bragging about it at church. It also lets these members give a ‘safe’ insult to members who do watch the movies.

    This also spreads to many other aspects of the church, including members who try to make the Word of Wisdom mean “Thou shalt not be fat” or “Thou shalt not drink Pepsi”

    I think it’s a habit that’s just plain part of LDS culture. With so much emphasis on becoming perfect,(as our apostles tell us to strive for,) there will always be members who see motes and ignore rods.

    Comment by Karl Butcher — 2/9/2005 @ 10:47 am

21. #19, “Why do we as members try to make it into something it isn’t?”

    I think it has to do with certain members wanting to feel better about themselves by abstaining from R rated movies and then bragging about it at church. It also lets these members give a ‘safe’ insult to members who do watch the movies.

    Karl,
    Let me see if I understand your logic. You are saying that the only reason I refrain from watching certain movies is so that I can insult others for doing so? I don’t know that I have ever insulted anyone for not watching any particular movie, though they may have taken my decision to leave rather than watch a certain movie as an insult.
    That said, I want to emphasize, once again, that my intent was to examine the impulse behind editing. I am willing to recognise that there are quite a few PG-13 or even PG movies that I really have problems with, and I don’t know that editing would make it all better. (I was offended, for example by the lewd and sexist attitudes in My Favorite Martian, and it was a PG movie by Disney.)
    Which leads me back to my previous comments about editing and the tenor of movies, I would say that if a movie has content we do not approve of, there are really too possibilities. First, they could be signs of bad movie making, gratuitous things that really don’t fit and would perhaps indicate that the film doesn’t have that much artistic integrity to respect in the first place, in which case, why should I worry about watching a badly made movie. Second, they could be things that are necessary, and are therefore indicative of the attitudes espoused by the movie, in which case, it would seem that editing wouldn’t do that much. I can see the argument given in the Card article that there are select times when content, especially violent content or mature themes, might be part of a message that is worth seeing, in which case, the editing would ruin the message–an edited Passion looses whatever effect it might have. In other cases, I don’t see what effect editing could have. I watched Jersey Girl, the other night, for instance. It’s PG-13, and I rent some movies edited, as I’ve said, to keep from being unpleasantly surprized. What I found was that 1. the movie was incoprehensible without the edited scenes and 2. the movie still espoused values that made it unworth the time it took to watch it.

    Comment by Stephen Hancock — 2/9/2005 @ 12:39 pm

22. I’m never saying that this is the only reason to refrian from R’s, being fat, or drinking pepsi, that was not my intent.

    My intent was to answer the question, “why do mormons make things into something they’re not?”

    I have no problem with individual choices to refrain from R rated movies. I do have a problem with people in church telling me I need to be more righteous because I shouldn’t watch them.

    I’m sorry for not making that clearer in my post.

    Comment by Karl Butcher — 2/9/2005 @ 12:53 pm

23. Stephen,
    I should have added a comment or two of my own to the link I provided in #9. I didn’t mean to imply that I necessarily agree with everything in the article, I was just posting it for consideration. Also, I realize it was slightly off your topic of edited movies, and for that I apologize. I appreciate your comments in #10. It looks like Hatch either didn’t research thoroughly the counsel on R-rated movies, or else chose to exclude some comments from his article, or chose a different definition to frame his evaluation.
    I do like this:

    “Church members are required to use their own judgement in deciding what’s appropriate to read in books, watch on television, listen to on the radio, or see on the Internet. . . . Ultimately, participating in appropriate forms of media is an individual responsibility–one which each person will be held accountable for” (p. 21).

    As for watching edited movies, personally I am against the practice. I’d rather have the entire work as conceived by the creator or nothing. But CleanFlicks does seem to be doing well.

    Comment by Heather — 2/10/2005 @ 4:17 pm