I agree with surf(name removed by moderator)ure… I especially liked this part of what he said:
I am obligated to hold human life in high value, and by being entertained by the destroying of human life (even though it is fiction) I am somehow devaluing that life in my own mind.
That’s really the key. Jimmy Akin’s opinion, I think, goes too far in one direction, but the basis of it is good. He says (basically; I don’t remember to the letter) that violence and other material that may be in a film can fall into one of three basic categories: it can be gratuituous, it can be neutral, or it can be good. What category they fall into depends a lot on the story being told.
So for example, in films about the book of Exodus, there is violence, and were a modern treatment of it be made, there may be some degree of graphic violence. In this case, the violence would probably be good, because it is intricate to the true story being told - and indeed not any true story, but a true story directly pertaining to salvation history. Another example may be a story in which a man, in a struggle against evil, uses violence in a reasonable manner to defeat evil. More on this idea in a moment.
What about neutral violence? Consider a film about a character who has been shaped in part by, for example, witnessing spousal abuse as a child. If this violence were depicted - without going overboard, of course - as simply an intricate part of the story, it could be neutral. The reality is that bad things happen to people, and authentic art should relate to this reality. Stories that are true to the reality of our humanity will sometimes depict the violence and other evils that exist in this reality. A
loose analogy here may be to Christ’s parables, which sometimes contained violence, and yet (at least in some cases) did not stray from the way some people really behave sometimes.
Then there is gratuitous violence, sex, etc… This is violence/sex/whatever that exists for no reason other than to be entertaining, or that is either good or neutral, and yet is depicted too realistically, or to a degree that is unnecessary. For example, I watched a recently produced movie about the life of St. Paul (which I thought was, on the whole, very good… it was directed by Roger Young, if any are curious) which contained a very, very brief “sex scene.” In fact it can’t even be called that, in actuality. All it was, was a shot of a Jewish priest (who in the film is St. Paul’s friend and later enemy) removing his wife’s top on their wedding night (making visible a breast) and then hugging her, indicating that they were about to consumate their marriage. Now in some of the reviews I read after watching the film, people were upset with this scene, and in particular the brief upper nudity. I personally thought it was fine for various reasons, and in fact the scene itself was
certainly* important to the story at that point… we needed to know that they consumated their marriage, and not just assuming it, given it was their wedding night… it was important at that time that it was really pointed out to the audience, and I thought the way the scene was done (brief nudity and all) made the point even stronger about what happened in the next scene. In any case, the point is that that was enough. Had the scene gone on to be one of those “backs, legs, and hands” sex scenes that are put into a lot of films (and even TV these days
), that would have been gratuitous… dwelling too long on the sex and for no real reason.
Now to try to tie this together. Life - real life - is a struggle between good and evil: between God and Satan: between sin and Grace. This is not only a subject based on reality, but a
good subject to address in entertainment, both because it is based on a deep metaphysical reality and because it is something we can all be inspired about. Therefore, a movie like Star Wars, where there is an evil and a good and the good struggles to defeat the evil, can be good, and can make good use of violence if that violence is not overdone and
if that violence serves the story rather than
makes the story.
A movie made
just to have a bunch of explosions and fights and whatnot, I do think, is a problem, for precisely the reason surf(name removed by moderator)ure said: human life is sacred, and we ought not be entertained by the destruction or abuse of it. If we are entertained by a film depicting it - in a reasonable manner - as a part of a greater story, there’s nothing wrong with that… that’s
reality. However, if a film is made as a showcase for entertaining explosions and violence, or sex, or whatever, that’s a problem. That fails to respect the dignity of the human person, as it derives entertainment purely from attacks on that dignity.
Surf(name removed by moderator)ure said,
if content doesn’t matter at all so long as we are not tempted to sin, is it permissible to view pornography for “entertainment” purposes if it does not arouse us?
I think that’s a good question for reflection, because we have to figure out what the difference is between pornography and a good film with some nudity or sexuality in it. The difference is that in pornography, nudity and sexuality are A) not serving a story, but themselves the reason for being of the film, and B) depicted at extreme length and with much gaphicness. Another film with nudity or sexuality where those things are there both A) to serve the story and B) depicted reasonably, with restraint, and not to excess is not pornography, and may be a very morally good film. Consider this, and think about violence.
God bless!*
