Should Movies Be Censored?

[Timothysis]

Censorship is for communists and dictators, not democracies.

 

[TimothyIgnatius]

I wouldn’t say Hef “hates” religion.
Here is a bit of what he says:

“Religion was a very important part of my upbringing. I saw in it a quality, in terms of ideals and morality, that I embraced. I also saw part of it, the part related to human sexuality and other things, as hypocritical and hurtful. And I think that is the origin of who I am. The heart of who I am is a result of trying to make some sense of all of that…
I think I am a spiritual person, but I don’t mean that I believe in the supernatural. I believe in the creation, and therefore I believe there has to be a creator of some kind."

That doesn’t sound Catholic, but it doesn’t sound like “hate” or subversive, either.

Everyone loves to cast labels, to demonize the other side, to not listen to anything that isn’t strictly attuned to their own personal beliefs. Heaven forbid we actually try to understand those who disagree with us, instead of trying to justify our own beliefs by using hyperbole to discredit the opposition. This is one of the more unsavory aspects of human nature, an aspect that Christ indeed warned us of many times throughout the Gospel. There is no “us vs them,” people, it’s “us against ourselves.”

And then we wonder why people can never seem to work together.

 

[garn9173]

Should Movies Be Censored?

Who determines the critera that what get’s censored and what doesn’t? We already have the MPAA in place to rate movies, it’s up to PARENTS to determine what’s appropriate for themselves or their children to watch and that is what the movie and TV ratings are for. It DOES NOT take a village to raise a child.

 

[TimothyIgnatius]

Because for many filmmakers, it is an art form…and artists are about expressing different ideas, types of people, and society around them.
They cannot only make movies with Doris Day and no swearing, that would not be realistic to reflecting society.
Raging Bull is a great film and it has to have swearing because it is depicting characters who talked that way.
But if you don’t like films like that, don’t go see them. I can’t stand horror films so I don’t go see them.

Oh my, kudos to you for mentioning Raging Bull. It is my all-time favorite movie and I was planning on using it as an example in this thread if need be. Glad to know there are fellow fans of cinema here on CAF!

 

[TimothyIgnatius]

It seems wildly irrational to me that the very same people who think common sense and common decency should prevail in a public schoolroom think at the same time that they should not prevail on a movie screen.

You have free speech in the classroom, but the school industry does not encourage filthy language or sex in the classroom. So why does it have to be tolerated on the screen? Perhaps because the movie makers, while technically proficient at what they do, are really juvenile delinquents who have to show you what they can get away with?

Comparing a schoolroom to a movie theatre is as facile an argument as it gets.

An education is an inalienable right that everyone deserves an opportunity too. A movie is something you choose yourself, on your own terms. It might be for entertainment, it might be a work of art, however you define it, it’s on your own terms.

Public schools are for everyone. Movies appeal to certain demographics. When you go to the theatre, nobody is forcing you to see something. You choose what appeals to you. It doesn’t exactly work this way in a classroom; everyone is taught the same, uniform, objective material. Of course, you can choose which school to send your children, but they’re still going to learn the same academic essentials. There is absolutely no legitimate reason to hold the standards of a classroom to the standards of a film; it is absurd. What’s next, we’re going to put a loincloth over the statue of David?

 

[Timothysis]

Everyone loves to cast labels, to demonize the other side, to not listen to anything that isn’t strictly attuned to their own personal beliefs. Heaven forbid we actually try to understand those who disagree with us, instead of trying to justify our own beliefs by using hyperbole to discredit the opposition.

You should give the thread about freemasonry a try!!!

 

[edwest2]

Pollynova’s right.
If censoring is allowed in which those who would express non-Catholic ideas were silenced…the same, in turn, would have to happen with censoring Catholic ideas that would offend non-Catholics.
It’s freedom of speech/expression for all, not for just some.

Not true. There are always limits. I mean people can and do say what they want but a lot of it doesn’t mean anything. With Freedom comes Responsibility. Certain people don’t understand that at all. I could write:

gfdhjhh trdsrduo rtsrdgi oiiutrt poufrsd oufrcf

Get it printed out, frame it and hang it in an art gallery. With a large price tag of course.

Nonsense is nonsense.

Ed

 

[edwest2]

Comparing a schoolroom to a movie theatre is as facile an argument as it gets.

An education is an inalienable right that everyone deserves an opportunity too. A movie is something you choose yourself, on your own terms. It might be for entertainment, it might be a work of art, however you define it, it’s on your own terms.

Public schools are for everyone. Movies appeal to certain demographics. When you go to the theatre, nobody is forcing you to see something. You choose what appeals to you. It doesn’t exactly work this way in a classroom; everyone is taught the same, uniform, objective material. Of course, you can choose which school to send your children, but they’re still going to learn the same academic essentials. There is absolutely no legitimate reason to hold the standards of a classroom to the standards of a film; it is absurd. What’s next, we’re going to put a loincloth over the statue of David?

Who told you this? Demograhics? What’s that? You’re fooling yourself if you think filth is carefully monitored today.

When something like movies becomes as bad as most are today, it’s time to yell the truth from the housetops: Hollywood loves immoral. Sex scene anyone? That’s a legitimate “taste.”? Pleeez.

How about holding up the standards of a country? If you were in charge of Cultural Affairs for this country and some ambassador in a foreign country wanted to understand our culture, what would you send him? A box full of filth? “Yeah, Mr. Ambassador, you gonna catch some sweet bunnies in this flick.” And this one and this one and this one and this one… “Alvin & the Chipmunks? Boy, gotta toss that. Might think we’re radical religious nutballs or somethin’.”

Ed

 

[edwest2]

But we do.
For children’s films rated PG (or whatever it’s called now) there are rules about swearing, sex, nudity, and violence so that they are protected.
We would not do the same for adults in school who are in their twenties or thirties.

Same for film. If I as an adult am going to see a film version of Lady Chatterley’s Lover, a classic novel, it would be silly to not show some sort of nudity to portray a couple who is not married to each and involved in a passionate love affair.

It would be immoral. Reminder: You will get the Catholic Answer here.

Ed

 

[TimothyIgnatius]

Who told you this? Demograhics? What’s that? You’re fooling yourself if you think filth is carefully monitored today.

When something like movies becomes as bad as most are today, it’s time to yell the truth from the housetops: Hollywood loves immoral. Sex scene anyone? That’s a legitimate “taste.”? Pleeez.

How about holding up the standards of a country? If you were in charge of Cultural Affairs for this country and some ambassador in a foreign country wanted to understand our culture, what would you send him? A box full of filth? “Yeah, Mr. Ambassador, you gonna catch some sweet bunnies in this flick.” And this one and this one and this one and this one… “Alvin & the Chipmunks? Boy, gotta toss that. Might think we’re radical religious nutballs or somethin’.”

Ed

:doh2:

Hollywood doesn’t work the way you imagine it works. Like, not even close. Where do you get your information from? Do you study film? Because I actually have a degree in it…

Hollywood’s largest ‘market’ is pre-teen and teenage boys. They make the most money off movies rated PG through PG-13. Hence why movies like “The Avengers” and “Twilight” are so popular. The second largest market is pre-teen and teenage girls. Often times, a movie with an R or NC-17 label makes considerably less. Often times studios will cut the material the MPAA has deemed questionable in order to receive a lower rating, and thusly reach a broader audience. It’s all about corporate favoritism, not actually protecting our children (another laughable concept).

A form of censorship already exists and it’s already detrimental to the movie-going public. Ask yourself why independent films with artistic merit but also depict nudity are given the economic death-kiss of an NC-17 label, when uber violent corporate studio movies full of gun violence and death only get a PG-13. Censorship is wrong, always, and things are not as black and white as you propose they are.

 

[Timothysis]

How about holding up the standards of a country?

You can uphold your personal standards all day long but what makes you think that you can tell others what they should and shouldn’t watch?

We wouldn’t allow protestants to tell us what is acceptable; what makes you think it should work the other way? Believe it or not, Hollywood would not make the movies they do if people didn’t go see them. Your example of Singin’ In The Rain is a good one. Don’t think that the characters on the screen were the same as the actors off screen. Rex Harrison and Cary Grant were completely charming in the movies but their personal lives were far from wholesome.

We really need to get over this idea of the “good old days.”

 

[TimothyIgnatius]

We really need to get over this idea of the “good old days.”

 

[Seeker1961]

You can uphold your personal standards all day long but what makes you think that you can tell others what they should and shouldn’t watch?

We wouldn’t allow protestants to tell us what is acceptable; what makes you think it should work the other way? Believe it or not, Hollywood would not make the movies they do if people didn’t go see them. Your example of Singin’ In The Rain is a good one. Don’t think that the characters on the screen were the same as the actors off screen. Rex Harrison and Cary Grant were completely charming in the movies but their personal lives were far from wholesome.

We really need to get over this idea of the “good old days.”

Back in the “good old days” there was no 24 hour news cycle demanding to be fed, so we didn’t know about the real lives of celebrities. There’s also no more “studio system” in Hollywood protecting the image of their stars. Actors like Troy Donahue and Rock Hudson had elaborately staged marriages to make sure the movie going public didn’t find out they were gay. The studio system hid the affairs, the drug use…all the nasty little secrets that might stop people from buying tickets.

The funny thing is, today people can really put themselves in a nice little entertainment bubble where modern TV and movies never enter their home, and yet people STILL complain about how everything is so terrible on TV and in the movies.

Don’t like it? Don’t watch it.

 

[JamesCaruso]

I can tell you as a media professional, that that was the plan. Starting in the 1970s, they showed a little bad, in the 80s, a little more, in the 90s, a little more.

The goal was to desensitize you to the idea of sin and a good, clean conscience. Your only choice, most of the time, today is the even more bad at the movies. I lived through it.

I watch only a little TV and see one or two movies a year. This year, it looks like only one.

I keep track of what Hollywood is doing as part of my job. We didn’t get from clean and wholesome to dirty, bloody and disgusting overnight. We were poisoned gradually.

Peace,
Ed

I think another term for going with the flow is concupiscence (in the Christian sense of the word*). I was surprised to see the usual meaning of this word is nothing like we were taught in religion classes many years ago. You said we were poisoned, but another way to look at it is that as a society we have slowly allowed ourselves to follow our natural inclinations. As we become inured to one level of profanity, we sink slowly to the next, until over a period of time we wake up one day in the gutter and wonder how we got there.

*For Christians, concupiscence refers to what they understand as the orientation, inclination or innate tendency of human beings to long for fleshly appetites, often associated with a desire to do things which are proscribed. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concupiscence

 

[JamesCaruso]

You are very wrong.

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_29061936_vigilanti-cura_en.html

Ed

 

[JamesCaruso]

It’s time to say that a lot more often, especially here. And no, CATHOLICS are not free to ignore Church teaching and put garbage in their heads. Otherwise, we are picking and choosing no matter what the Church teaches. If we do, why bother being Catholic and listen to the teaching authority of the Church?

You can do it, but it is strongly not recommended and the results are quite predictable.

Ed

Actually, Catholics should want Church (name removed by moderator)ut into what is worthy, decent, just and moral. I’ve noticed during my life, times when I reasoned one way only to find the Church went the other way. So I read what the Church had to say and was surprised to find that it was right and I was wrong. As Americans some of us have inherited an independent streak that tells us, sometimes wrongly, that we are the last and final judge of all things. We carry conscience to a fault. I’ve been wrong and didn’t know it. There is a proverb that goes: *There is wisdom in many counsels. * Anymore, I always try to find out what the Church is teaching on any given matter. I have always found it to be a trustworthy source of insight and guidance.

 

[TimothyIgnatius]

I am not discredited by what the Pope said in 1936. A lot has changed, both good and bad, since then. Woman had only been able to vote for 16 years. Segregation and racism were still rampant. Pius XI has also garnered some attention for his role (or lackthereof) in the rise (or preventing the rise of) Hitler and Nazism in Germany, whether that is warranted or not. There was a LOT of evil things going on, same as today, same as it will be (until the Second Coming), same as it always was.

When you in essence limit someone’s artistic capability, you are ridding them from the opportunity to make something actually worthwhile. Yes, there will be garbage, but it’s on us to teach our children how to decipher what’s garbage and what’s worthy. Censorship tries to instill strict rules on something that is intangibly limitless, failing to realize the potential. Do you think nudity, violence and foul-language can never be used to express a message that denounces them? Do you think depicting something is an automatic endorsement of it? This is not so.

I think of Saving Private Ryan. The first 30 minutes or so are filled with some of the most harrowing violence ever committed to the screen, but I don’t get a thrill from it. The first time I watched it I was horrified, but I realized that I was supposed to be horrified. I think of Schindler’s List, which depicts naked people, but it wasn’t sexually stimulating, it expressed an overwhelming sense of vulnerability and fear that the people who actually went through those crimes endured.

It’s not so black and white.

The answer isn’t to allow censorship. I take huge issue with the notion that we as a people are too weak to handle certain things on screen, music, in a museum looking at a painting, or anywhere really. The change in society that needs to happen isn’t going to happen by instilling draconian, inevitably corruptible laws. It needs to happen at home, in a family setting. It needs to happen in the schools that better teach our children how to become critical thinkers. It needs to happen in the heart and the mind and the soul, not in a room full of questionable censors.

 

[Baelor]

What modern musical comedy would you put on a par with or better than Singing in the Rain?

Nice try. First, you said movies as a whole are worse, not musicals. Second, it was not an issue of technical quality, but of “neanderthal”-ness. Singing in the Rain is hardly intellectually stimulating. The issue of whether it is better or worse than a small segment of films today is irrelevant. For the record, Chicago was an excellent movie – it was Best Picture at the Oscars.

The parts that related to sex, violence, and language were very compatible!

And yet the Hays Code was more than those things.

You got me there. But if they could come up with a formula once, they might come up with one again.

Their formula, as you yourself stated, was based on religion. It was also a wrong formula. We would be sinning by reinstating the Hays Code.

When I was a young man, the audience used to applaud at the end of a movie to show their appreciation of artistic merit. I can’t remember any applause in the last 30 years. Does that tell you anything?

I have been to plenty of movies that had applause at the end. It tells me you are either going to the wrong movies or to movies with a comatose audience.

You talk against force. I say Hollywood is forcing neanderthalism on the American public.

You have not explained what that means. What is neanderthalism?

 

[Baelor]

There is no such thing as free speech that encourages the sick, depraved, ultraviolent, demented, dirty, filthy, profanity-filled and immoral and amoral things coming out of Hollywood.

That is technically free speech, even by the Catholic definition of freedom.

And NO, it’s not just about money.

Prove it.

Everything has limits - everything. Hollywood has a moral and civic duty as people to not degrade the moral and intellectual sensibilities of the people.

No one is debating this.

Go to any large internet forum. Read the rules. Guess what? You are not allowed to say or show or link to anything you want. On our board, you get a few warnings, with explanations, then you’re temporarily banned. Try it a few more times and you’re banned for life.

Yes, but the forum could voluntarily have no rules. All the rules are voluntary. /b/ basically has no rules.

gfdhjhh trdsrduo rtsrdgi oiiutrt poufrsd oufrcf

Get it printed out, frame it and hang it in an art gallery. With a large price tag of course.

Nonsense is nonsense.

It may not be nonsense. I could see someone getting something out of your “nonsense.” Who are you to tell them what does or does not have meaning for them in an arena divorced from ontological reality?

When something like movies becomes as bad as most are today, it’s time to yell the truth from the housetops: Hollywood loves immoral. Sex scene anyone? That’s a legitimate “taste.”? Pleeez.

No one here has argued for gratuitous sex scenes or that such scenes are tasteful.

“Alvin & the Chipmunks? Boy, gotta toss that. Might think we’re radical religious nutballs or somethin’.”

Alvin & the Chipmunks was a horrible, horrible movie.

 

[edwest2]

:doh2:

Hollywood doesn’t work the way you imagine it works. Like, not even close. Where do you get your information from? Do you study film? Because I actually have a degree in it…

Hollywood’s largest ‘market’ is pre-teen and teenage boys. They make the most money off movies rated PG through PG-13. Hence why movies like “The Avengers” and “Twilight” are so popular. The second largest market is pre-teen and teenage girls. Often times, a movie with an R or NC-17 label makes considerably less. Often times studios will cut the material the MPAA has deemed questionable in order to receive a lower rating, and thusly reach a broader audience. It’s all about corporate favoritism, not actually protecting our children (another laughable concept).

A form of censorship already exists and it’s already detrimental to the movie-going public. Ask yourself why independent films with artistic merit but also depict nudity are given the economic death-kiss of an NC-17 label, when uber violent corporate studio movies full of gun violence and death only get a PG-13. Censorship is wrong, always, and things are not as black and white as you propose they are.

We are in direct contact with a major Hollywood studio. We had a department head from a major Hollywood studio visit us twice. I helped mentor a young screenwriter and continue to mentor him. His first offering did not get the green light. He is now working on his second.

Our contact has been for a number of years now. Sadly, I do know how things are done. Things are very black and white.

Look up the words right, wrong, modesty and decency and compare that to the bulk of Hollywood’s current output. What is truly laughable is how Hollywood creates false reality in the real world, i.e.; “The movie didn’t find its audience.” That’s a lie.

I’d rather get the word out from an industry veteran as reported in Variety. “Even though we spend millions to promote a film we cannot predict which one will hit or miss.” That’s a true statement. Something confirmed to us privately.

Ed