In lieu of the recent thread, I've decided to postpone my Celtics preview. I know that's disappointing. Let's talk about movies instead...a much more redemptive topic I'm sure, but, whatever. Go Celtics.
So what should determine whether you go see a movie or not? Clearly not the ratings system these days. For instance, MI:3, which, I admit, I watched yesterday, is rated PG-13 for Menace. (I'm not sure what that is and would Menace to Society have been rated R for Menace as well.)The ratings merely tell you what type of "inappropriate" material is in each movie, not whether it's redemptive, not whether it serves a purpose. Look at The Passion of the Christ. Rated R. Though, clearly, the violence was the paragon(GRE word!) of redemption. I argue you almost can't decide to see a movie based on the MPAA ratings because it doesn't, nor can it, take these factors into account. Though, at the same time, the ratings system does do a good job of giving you an idea of the "inappropriate" material. Look at the new film Shortbus, it's called an art film but most reviewers, while it's got a point, admit it's basically soft porn.
If ratings system gives us an idea, I don't think it can be a benchmark(recent buzz word!) for what determines what movies we see. Though it can, and should, lead us to look at whether we should see a movie. Then it seems movie watching becomes a relative experience, something left up the person to decide. This isn't necessarily the case, but where it's certainly heading. And if it is the case, it then puts a lot of pressure on the movie-goer to decide for his/her-self and do some research -- which I thoroughly advocate.
My movie watching decisions fall along these lines. I won't see Shortbus, nor do I have any desire to. I draw the line when sex or nudity is clearly involved. I believe it most often and usually serves very little redeeming purposes within the movie and for me personally (one exception: Schindler's list). And I won't see a movie, that while it may be very good, has sex and/or nudity involved (i.e. Cold Mountain, Monster's Ball). Violence and language don't really bother me all that much and I can deal with that. I grew up in the ghetto afterall.
Am I compromising what I believe and who I am? I try not to. I really do, but realize I may fall short in some way. Some of my readers may think I'm too gray, others may think I'm too much of a prude. Either way, it should be an interesting thread.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
I agree with you in that I pretty much ignore a movie's MPAA rating when it comes to seeing a movie. It really just depends on what mood I'm in. Violence in movies doesn't bother me because I learned a long time ago that it's just latex and corn-syrup. Sex doesn't bother me either, I learned all about human reproduction in anatomy class. I do admit however that gratuitous sex and violence bother me. When it's apparently clear that these things are meant to compensate for a weak plotline, that's rather bothersome.
Also, a movie is entertainment pure and simple. I do not look to any form of entertainment media to validate, or fall in line with, my moral beliefs.
I almost feel sorry for that person in your last thread about The Departed, if he/she was unaware that she'd be exposed to sex/violence from A MARTIN SCORSESE MOVIE!! Find one movie he directed that didn't feature one or the other in large amounts and I will give you...well, ok I won't give you anything, but it would be interesting to know.
Now who's living in a bubble?
ps. Aaron-love the line about coming from the gehtto. I'm pretty sure what you'd call a ghetto, I'd call a suburb, ha ha.
No...people got stabbed at my school!
As for movies being solely entertainment, I'll disagree with you there. For the most part they are -- either because it's a Tom Cruise type flick (outside of Magnolia and Rain Man) or it's James Bond movie or it's just an adaptation of a book (an example of a movie trying to be a literary form). But occasionally movies can be more than just entertainment and for more than just entertainment purposes we can watch them. For example: Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Hotel Rwanda, Traffic. Those movies can challenge us in ways like books and music can challenge us -- and get us to think about topics in the movie, outside of how they did a certain stunt. These types of movies are rare, and are often laden with other things that, to me, render them not worth seeing. But movies can be and are made for more than just entertainment purposes.
Sounds like you needed principal Joe Clark at your school. Ever see Lean On Me? More schools need principals like that.
I'm also going to have to disagree with movies being solely entertainment. The fact is, movies shape our society for good or for worse. Movies reflect society, and society reflects movies. For this reason alone, it is clear that movies are not "pure" entertainment. That was the whole point of both Gladiator and The Truman Show (and I'm sure many other films). It raises the question: What do we entertain ourselves with?
On a more personal note, it is hard for me to understand how someone can say that they aren't affected by movies, music, or whatever else they are surrounding themselves with. I believe that movies in particular (and television too) have an enormous impact on what we think and feel. They give us the language for everyday life. Can you name something is more of a catalyst for change than movies/television?
Eric
E-man:Excellent point...In what we choose to surround ourselves with we make the choice TO be affected by it otherwise we wouldn't surround ourselves with it.
I don't know exactly how movies/television can be a catalyst for change. TV -- I'll give you that. Movies, it's a little trickier because you can't go out and make a movie today on Kerry's comments and have it in the box office by next weekend.
In other words, movies, as far as social and political movements are concerned, can wield little or no impact because they are not timely. Yet they can change minds, hearts, affections, whatever in the realm of aesthetics, morals and the like.
TV is a whole n'other issue.
And Gladiator was a terrible movie, btw.
Hold on. before you lead a torch-carrying mob to my door, let me make something clear.
I agree that movies/tv can indeed be a reflection of our society and vice-versa, BUT this is not true of every movie. In fact, most movies aren't made with the purpose of delivering some profound, life-altering message for the viewer to take with them. They are made to entertain you, to provide a temporary escape from the drudgery that is your everyday life. And let's not forget the most important reason for making movies...profit. Movies are made with the hopes of turning a profit. Especially nowadays, if a movie makes a profit, a guaranteed sequel is in the works. Wait and see if there isn't a Passion of the Christ 2 at some point.
Movies can be both entertaining and thought-provoking. But as for life-changing. Show me someone who has made a serious life-altering choice solely on the viewing of a movie, and I'll show you someone who is clearly easily influenced and seems a bit handicapped when it comes to forming rational, independent thoughts and opinions.
Keep in mind that movies are seldom objective. After all, the filmmaker is telling the story from their point of view, regardless of their claims of objectivity. Whether or not you agree with them is up to you.
Schindler's List was a great movie that chronicled the suffering of the Jews at the hands of the Nazis. It was as thought-provoking to me as it was disturbing to see such brutality from my fellow man. So, did it make me think? Obviously. Did it change my life per se? No.
Because of Super-Size me I no longer eat at McDonald's. That's a life altering decision.
Now, I eat at Burger King and Wendy's.
Whoa, I'm a latecomer today.
Movies do not have to be "just for entertainment." Think about Syriana or Thank You for Smoking or Michael Moore's work (say what you will about him, but his movies were NOT for entertainment) or Morgan Spurlock's. He's working on a new one, by the way - What Would Jesus Buy? - about the commercialization of Christmas. I can't WAIT!
But sometimes movies can just be movies, and sometimes I like those too.
I am very hesitant to say that there is a single movie that has ever been made that tells is "just entertainment." Movies impact culture at to such an extent, it is hard for me to think that one goes to a movie and walks away without taking something with them, whether one realizes it or not.
Some examples:
(1) You watch Mission Impossible III and you walk away with an idea of what it means to be a "man." What it means to be "cool."
(2) You watch Dumb and Dumber and you walk away with what it means to be funny. The movie defines humor in our society.
(3) You walk away from Broke Back Mountain and you have been told what sexuality is and is not.
(4) You walk away from Saw II (or is it III, I can't keep up) and you are told what perversity is - the problem here being they have pushed back the line.
You cannot name a movie that in some way does not define boundaries in our society - whether the movie is intended to or not. The person that doesn't think they are influenced by movies and television simply needs to look at their wardrobe and think about who it is that defined those clothes as being "in style."
Just a thought. I could be wrong.
Eric
The last line in Sara's entry basically sums up my point.
So, thank you Sara.
I think Sara's wrong. That was my point.
Eric
Perhaps I should say that for ME, some movies are just entertainment. Personally, I did not walk away from Mission Impossible (I only saw the first one) understanding what it is like to "be a man" (and not all men are Tom Cruise - thank goodness).
And as much as I love Dumb and Dumber, I hope that is not the definition of humor in our society.
Oh, and, I am always right. *ha ha*
I'm not suggesting that anyone walks away from a movie and thinks to themselves, "So that's what it means to be funny," or "So that's what it means to be 'hip.'"
The point is that movies are a means of enculturation whether we know it or not. They teach us about our society and the unspoken rules that we all live by.
Let me ask this question: Can we rightly distinguish between what we allow ourselves to be entertained by and who we are? Is it possible to place a gap between the two?
Eric
Eric...
As always, I'm enjoying your questions. But, if you keep using words like enculturation...a blatant mocking of me...then I'm going to make this blog a place for your opprobrium (GRE word -- go look at one up at dictionary.com)
Anyway, I don't think we can distinguish as well as we'd like to. See the last paragraph of my original entry. Then again, some don't see the need to distinguish. Though I can watch MI:3 as I did and not take away anything from it. Really. It's not that tough. But I see your point.
As soon as we place a gap we become a walking contradiction -- again, important to some, not to others. As much as my love for paradox emboldens me, being one is not my goal.
And sara -- You know you miss those Dumb and Dumber quoting sessions on the Chipmunks porch. Though I think Eric, you, were a little hyperbolic in your analysis of the movie and humor in general...I still think it's the freaking funniest movie ever.
Told you this would be an interesting thread. See. I'm always right.
I see by the rating comments I submitted on The Departed has generated some interesting discussion. Are movies just pure entertainment? Do movies have redeeming quality? Have movies been a mirror that reflects culture? Do movies reflect the view of the writer, producer and director? These are good discussion points but there are two things perhaps more basic:
1. Your money fuels the engine
2. Where your treasure is you will find your heart.
Eric, you're on the money. Everything we watch shapes our concept of what is normal and what is not, even if it is just reinforcing certain concepts. We don't often conciously process these things but this is how social reality is created. In fact all of our interactions have this effect but these kinds of media are much more dynamic because they are universal in scope.
Thanks jd, I'm glad somebody understands me.
Eric
*ahhh* nights on the chipmunks porch...
Post a Comment