Should Movies Be Censored?

[Kamaduck]

I gave up actually reading this thread when ed posted a four-part essay, so I’ll just leave my general thoughts here.

If Hollywood wants to set limits for itself, that’s fine, since they’re the ones making those movies. I don’t know why they would, and I don’t think it will, but it won’t affect the movies I watch. Considering how much worse stuff is out there, I find it hard to believe that any PG-13 levels of violence would be cut.

If the government wants to set limits for what is acceptable, that’s not fine. I don’t think anyone is advocating for it, and it won’t happen anyway (at least not in our favor).

If Hollywood wants to impose some new decency standards, I have no problems with that. There is too much excessive violence and sexual content in movies for my taste, so I don’t watch. Any censorship would almost certainly not affect anything I watch.

That said, I don’t think I’d be very happy with the kind of “entertainment” that ed and Portrait are suggesting. I’m a fan of quite a few older movies, but I’m also a fan of newer movies that encourage thought- what Baelor calls “intellectually stimulating”. I’m in the crowd that considers almost all movies to be a form of art, so I don’t want to unnecessarily hamper self-expression.

I just saw the Hunger Games movie a week ago for the first time, and it was not only good, it was a legitimate social commentary. That level of violence might not have been acceptable fifty years ago, but it’s a good way of making a point now. Especially considering the last movie to sweep my demographic off its feet, I welcome anything aimed at teenage girls that encourages thought.

I admit my knowledge of film is minimal compared to some of the posters here (I’ve only taken two classes on it), but I see no reason why some basic guidelines would be harmful. I also see no reason why violence for the sake of making a point, introducing urgency to a situation, or depicting truly horrific events is wrong. Not all art is meant to reaffirm what we already know. Some of it is meant to be a call to action.

 

[JamesCaruso]

We must act. If for no one else then for Catholics, so that we can show by our deeds, by our good fruit, that disowning the darkness is a must TODAY.

1. Find other ways to enjoy life that do not involve most movies, and keep track of what’s going on through reviews, Catholic and otherwise. Keep other Catholics informed.
2. We need strong Catholic communities. We need to be around other Catholics that want to change our habits. The Bible tells us to encourage one another.
3. Ignore those who scream that their rights are being violated or that the 100% evil government will step in. We don’t need the government. Talk to your local priest. Tell him that most movies are bad for us and to tell it to the whole congregation.
4. Contact your Bishop and tell him the same thing. Ask him to encourage Catholics to rid themselves of all movies that will darken us, and to set up collection and disposal centers so that this material will be destroyed.

It begins with each one of us. We can NOT afford to be passive or put this mostly on the shoulders of the Church leadership. Each one of is called to holiness. And movies that do not promote human decency and human dignity are automatically out.

Some of us cannot conceive of an end to our lives. Let us have life more abundantly but let us live in the light, and have good, clean fun. The Holy Spirit has given gifts to all of us. Do a little, do a lot, but do something.

Peace and God bless,

Ed

Thanks for baring your soul and making this heartfelt plea. I am reminded-- “Encourage each other daily while it is still today.” (Hebrews 3:13)

 

[Portrait]

Continuation of #129

Rigorous censorship, dear friends, may not indeed become a reality soon but good Christian people can, notwithstanding, make a difference in what is offered by voting with their wallets. Simply refuse to patronize films or buy DVD’s that essentially glorify immorality and border on the semi-pornographic. Give a jolly wide-berth to films or television shows that are little more than a feast of graphically dramatised violence, peppered with profanity. Moreover, boycotts, be they of an organized or an individual variety, may not always result in getting the offensive product taken off the market, but they do, nonethless, make an important moral statement. However, boycotting culturally unsavoury products is only the beginning, for the best way to overcome banality is surely to cultivate something much better. Thus there is an obligation laid upon those who profess Christ’s holy religion to seek “whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things” (Phillip. 4: 8). St. Paul is telling us to train our tastes to love the more nobler things - things that truly challenge our mind, deepen our character and, most crucially, foster a love of excellence, which certainly encompasses the films and television we watch, the music we listen to and the books that we read.

Many of us, dear brother, remain unconvinced that contemporary films actually do teach us new dimensions of good and evil through a gripping story. For example was Mr. Spielberg’s film, Saving Private Ryan, really necessary to give us a sense of gratitude for the bloody sacrifce made by our parents and grandparents during WWII? Many of the old less graphically violent war films conveyed this message, as do the documentaries and history books. Again, did we need the same director’s Sc**hindler’s List film to remind men of the reality of evil and the need to resist it. Decidedly no. These films are simply a form of extreme entertainment and are wholly unecessary and, as you correctly observed, in giving us Saving Private Ryan Mr. Spielberg did not give us a better movie, merely a more bloodier and more graphic one. The chap knows fully well that people nowadays relish this sort of fare and that good box office returns will be assured.

What we require again, dear brother, is films and television that portray noble characters who stand for the traditional moral values of honesty, courage and sacrifice. Remember, the well-loved films by Frank Capra, such as* It’s a wonderful Life* and Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. Mr. Capra successfully portrayed such characters - characters who resorted to prayer as naturally as breathing. Whilst many of the old Republic studio Westerns, for example A Man Alone, contained some scenes of violent gun play that were necessary to the plot line, there was no gratuitous violence, that was to come in the Sixties with Sergio Leone etal and the notorious ‘Spaghetti Western’. Even some of the old Universal Horrors were mildness itself when compared to the extreme and visceral horrors of the late Sixties and Seventies. Here in the UK, even the earlier gothic horror film output of the Hammer studio was mostly pretty tame stuff, although they did have their spine-chilling moments for sure. However, unlike the so called modern ‘slasher films’, the directors realized that it is not always what you saw on screen but what you did not see, or what was implied, that is actually more horrifying. Sadly, the Hammer studio would later take advantage of the relaxed censorship and started to introduce full-frontal nudity, releasing such vile films as The Vampire Lovers, an unsavoury cocktail of sex and horror. The studio was, of course, able to largely ignore standards of good taste and decency because the age for an X certificate film had been raised from 16 to 18 in 1970, which gave them a license to push the envelope. Consequently, their subsequent film output became increasingly morally offensive and eminently forgettable. This only serves to underscore the necessity for a strict censorship, for man in his fallen estate will always want to push things to the very limit, especially in the entertainment industry.

Ultimately however, dear brother, to be a redemptive force in debased popular culture, Christians must go beyond being critical and start being creative. This is precisely what ‘Catholics in Media’ are doing and their worthy labours should be supported by the faithful.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[JamesCaruso]

Dear Ed,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Splendid posts and most crucially they explain our present moral degradation and why men today, including film makers/TV producers, lack a moral compass, which is manifestly obvious given the culturally unwholesome film and television output.

The Sixties, dear brother, was a decade of decadence and whilst I was still in short trousers in those days, I have read extensively about that period and spoken to many people who had the misfortune to pass through those turbulent times. It was an age in which the young (and not so young) took a perverse delight in discarding the (Christian) moral standards of previous generations and then encouraged others to “tune in, turn on and drop out” (Timothy Leary). How indicative of our present plight, that we actually make a luminary of Leary and regard him as a source of intellectual light and inspiration. It would, moreover, be a grave mistake to laugh the Sixties off as halcyon days of love, joy and peace, on the contrary, they were days when a moral revolution was astir, the dreadful legacy of which is still very much with us today - abortion, homosexual vice, contraception, immodest attire, rock/pop music and unprecedented youth rebellion, to name but a few of the troubles that are the bane of our comtemporary Western world. The dreadful declension of media standards and the rapid growth of culturally unsavoury content in films and television shows is but a presenting symptom of the moral malaise that began in the permissive Sixties.

As popular culture has spread, dear brother, its content has coursened shockingly and who can honestly deny that since the Sixties the level of sex and violence has risen sharply in films, television, music, computer games, literature and even comic books. Moreover, in recent times we have seen the emergence of media that seeks to normalize the homosexual lifestyle and its accompanying vice, implying that anyone who is opposed to this unnatural behaviour must be an intolerant religious fanatic. Therefore, in view of all this, a rigorous censorship is surely needed as a matter of urgency, but I do not feel that this is likely to happen shortly, at least humanly speaking. However, with God nothing is impossible and perhaps as Catholics we can begin again to prove the power of prayer, even as we seek to bring all the key issues to the attention of our fellow men.

What is so very deeply saddening today, dear brother, is that you have putative Catholics who will argue that it is possible to assimilate a certain amount of media immorality and yet not be adversely affected by it, provided, that is, you have a robust enough faith which allows you to separate the good from among the bad and ugly. This is sheer arrant nonsense, for we are all fallen men with a continual propensity to sin at any time and it is therefore dangerous and presumptious to expose oneself to immoral or violent content - “Can a man take fire in his bosom, and his clothes not be burned? Can one go upon hot coals, and his feet not be burned” (Prov. 6: 27,28). As soon as we expose ourselves to the unwholesome influences of the media we are playing with fire and are unlikely to preserve our innocency. We are effectively thrusting ourselves into the way of temptation and throwing ourselves out of God’s protection. It is beyond me why any devout Catholic who is in earnest repecting the pursuit of holiness would ever wish to do that? Of course, they try and rebuff that by the ‘no true scotman’ argument, but we are only interested in what the true *Catholic *,desirous to see the beatific vision of God in Christ, would do. In any event, it admits of no doubt that continual exposure to unwholesome material will, at length, poison the mind and demoralize the life, resulting in a man finally becoming desensitized to the exceeding sinfulness of sin. We have this on the authority of St. Paul himself who said, “Be not decieved. Bad communications corrupt good manners” (I Cor. 15: 33), and cannot that be extended quite legitimately to include bad films and television, bad music and bad literature etc?

To be continued.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

On the money, as usual. I had to look up the term “No true Scotsman” which led me to a biography of Antony Flew which in turn renewed my interest in philosophical thought. But where is there time for all these things. Obviously, to your credit, you did find time. I, OTOH, am a sadly willing participant in the dumbing down of America, which is another sign of the times we live in.

 

[edwest2]

I gave up actually reading this thread when ed posted a four-part essay, so I’ll just leave my general thoughts here.

If Hollywood wants to set limits for itself, that’s fine, since they’re the ones making those movies. I don’t know why they would, and I don’t think it will, but it won’t affect the movies I watch. Considering how much worse stuff is out there, I find it hard to believe that any PG-13 levels of violence would be cut.

If the government wants to set limits for what is acceptable, that’s not fine. I don’t think anyone is advocating for it, and it won’t happen anyway (at least not in our favor).

If Hollywood wants to impose some new decency standards, I have no problems with that. There is too much excessive violence and sexual content in movies for my taste, so I don’t watch. Any censorship would almost certainly not affect anything I watch.

That said, I don’t think I’d be very happy with the kind of “entertainment” that ed and Portrait are suggesting. I’m a fan of quite a few older movies, but I’m also a fan of newer movies that encourage thought- what Baelor calls “intellectually stimulating”. I’m in the crowd that considers almost all movies to be a form of art, so I don’t want to unnecessarily hamper self-expression.

I just saw the Hunger Games movie a week ago for the first time, and it was not only good, it was a legitimate social commentary. That level of violence might not have been acceptable fifty years ago, but it’s a good way of making a point now. Especially considering the last movie to sweep my demographic off its feet, I welcome anything aimed at teenage girls that encourages thought.

I admit my knowledge of film is minimal compared to some of the posters here (I’ve only taken two classes on it), but I see no reason why some basic guidelines would be harmful. I also see no reason why violence for the sake of making a point, introducing urgency to a situation, or depicting truly horrific events is wrong. Not all art is meant to reaffirm what we already know. Some of it is meant to be a call to action.

“Art” is not the holy of holies. Inviolate and untouchable. As someone who has actually written movie treatments and read those written and submitted to one large Hollywood studio, I know what it takes to build a world and create characters.

“encourages thought” of what? For what purpose?

“Art” is not, in most cases today, a good teacher. It debases men and women. “Art” has become a false idol to some. It arises from the thoughts of men who all have a certain worldview, and who pass their poisonous worldview on to new screenwriters and directors. It is not “holy” in a secular sense. Today, most of it is propaganda and a call to the wrong type of “action.”

I do hope that people here get to understand that “art” is not the new “god” and pure as snow. It is ugly, twisted and unhealthy for the mind and spirit in most cases. I am a professional editor and writer.

Words and images can lift people up, and they can bring people down to the depths of the human condition. I know because I’ve been watching all media carefully for some years now. Read or watch any competent movie review. The movie is always disassembled regarding its intent and meaning.

If we feed our intellect garbage while sitting passively and absorbing words and images passively, what good is it if it’s bad? It turns our thoughts to the bad humans can do and we forget about the good.

I’ve edited a lot of stories in many genres and you know what? They have to be family friendly. And we get letters and e-mails from people who tell us how our books have inspired them, encouraged them and had other positive effects on them. This is the legacy I and those I work with, want to leave the world.

What legacy is the “art” of today leaving us?

Peace,
Ed

 

[JamesCaruso]

I gave up actually reading this thread when ed posted a four-part essay, so I’ll just leave my general thoughts here.

These guidelines come from Helpful Tips for Posting by Marian Carroll, Moderator (ret.) forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=187801.:

1. …Be certain to limit yourself to one post blank – do not use sequential posting blanks.
2. The character limit is in place on the forums to encourage participants to keep their remarks to a reasonable length. Please limit posts into a discussion thread to one single posting form.

I think not only avoidance of sequential posts, but brevity in single posts, encourages more people to participate and engenders a livelier, more robust discussion/debate. It’s also easier to wrap one’s cranium around, and respond to, one issue or part of an issue at a time.

But it’s true, OTOH, that some issues are quite complicated and require more than the accustomed “sound bite” we get on the evening news. It’s difficult to be terse and yet fully express our views, but that is the challenge of participating in a forum, and I agree with the tipping guidelines wholeheartedly.

At the risk of being too lengthy myself, I enjoyed and learned from EdWest’s 4-part post and encourage you to give it another try.

 

[edwest2]

Thanks for baring your soul and making this heartfelt plea. I am reminded-- “Encourage each other daily while it is still today.” (Hebrews 3:13)

You’re welcome.

Ed

 

[Kamaduck]

“Art” is not the holy of holies. Inviolate and untouchable. As someone who has actually written movie treatments and those written and submitted to one large Hollywood studio, I know what it takes to build a world and create characters.

“encourages thought” of what? For what purpose?

“Art” is not, in most cases today, a good teacher. It debases men and women. “Art” has become a false idol to some. It arises from the thoughts of men who all have a certain worldview, and who pass their poisonous worldview on to new screenwriters and directors. It is not “holy” in a secular sense. Today, most of it is propaganda and a call to the wrong type of “action.”

I do hope that people here get to understand that “art” is not the new “god” and pure as snow. It is ugly, twisted and unhealthy for the mind and spirit in most cases. I am a professional editor and writer.

Words and images can lift people up, and they can bring people down to the depths of the human condition. I know because I’ve been watching all media carefully for some years now. Read or watch any competent movie review. The movie is always disassembled regarding its intent and meaning.

If we feed our intellect garbage while sitting passively and absorbing words and images passively, what good is it if it’s bad? It turns our thoughts to the bad humans can do and we forget about the good.

I’ve edited a lot of stories in many genres and you know what? They have to be family friendly. And we get letters and e-mails from people who tell us how our books have inspired them, encouraged them and had other positive effects on them. This is the legacy I and those I work with, want to leave the world.

What legacy is the “art” of today leaving us?

Peace,
Ed

I certainly don’t think all art is good for us, or that it is some kind of god. I’m all for ripping into bad art when people are mistaking it for something higher-quality. I just don’t like people claiming that depictions of violence are never acceptable, or that problems aren’t worth discussing.

By “encourages thought”, I mean just that- it gets people thinking and discussing things they normally don’t. When the people at my school read Hunger Games and watched the movie, they began discussing serious topics. Where our culture is headed. How there is a disconnect in our minds between our entertainment and our day-to-day lives. What we should do when others face oppression. How often we support evils without even considering what is actually happening. Whether the adults in our lives want what’s best for us, whether they can protect us, and how much we can depend on them. The story called us to reexamine our own lives and the systems we are a part of. Hunger Games is an interesting example, though, since violence in the media is actually a major theme, and it’s not considered OK. Hunger Games- despite the violence- did inspire many of us to fight our own battles and consider how to resist the evils we support without meaning to.

Thinking is good for us because it causes us to catch the flaws in our own ideas and be exposed to new ones that work. It helps us solve problems and alter ourselves for the better. I’m essentially saying that analyzing things and questioning them is a very good thing, and movies that encourage this have at least one positive affect. For me, the ultimate goal of thinking and observing is to discover objective truth. Perhaps that isn’t important to you, but I don’t think it’s a bad goal to have.

I’m not saying that all the discussions about Hunger Games involved particularly deep levels of thought. Some people talked about how much they liked the main character. Some discussed the plot and setting. Some questioned its originality and believability. Some tried to figure out how they would try to survive in the same situation. I don’t think any of that was bad for us, though. It is not “sitting passively”, it is actively processing our entertainment/art and determining whether it is worthwhile and why we like it. We are learning about ourselves.

I don’t know why you’re arguing against thought. I already said that most movies have too much excessive violence and sex, and that Hollywood self-censoring a little would be doing all of us a favor. I simply think that not all movies that contain violence are bad for us, and that thinking is a good thing. I didn’t think that was a radical notion.

 

[edwest2]

Dear Portrait,

Thank you, dear brother, for your posts. Though Proverbs 27:2 tells us not to praise ourselves, are we not to encourage each other? And we should not fall into a state of despair or anxiousness. Philippians 4:6 - “Have no anxiety at all, but in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, make your requests known to God.”

Today, some hold man’s knowledge above all other knowledge. And something I needed to learn quite early on during my first attempts to be a good researcher, for example, was to ignore that little voice that said, “you can’t do it” or “you won’t succeed.” I learned to drown out that little voice and instead, take the positive approach and press on.

We are in a war with our culture. Take England during The Blitz, and scenes of firefighters carrying surviving children from their destroyed homes. And when the V-1s and V-2s were falling, courage, hope, determination and displaying real heroism amid the carnage, encouraged others to do the same or at least kept hope alive.

Yes, I find it hard to believe that even when presented with the evidence, some insist they can “take it” or accuse others with “is your faith so weak?” And this from Catholics who should take a little time considering the consequences of their choices or freedom. But those are the two magical words given to us by those who would destroy right and proper living. You have the “choice” or you have the “freedom.” Most of the time, this translates into: “Hey. Sin is fun. I’m OK with it and you’re not me, so shut up already.” And this even from some Catholics who are careful to not admit calling it sinful.

Or, “Let’s start from the position that it’s all hopeless.” We can’t do anything or at least anything really big or meaningful.

If just one of us chooses to be the salt of the earth and chooses not to hide his light under a bushel basket, we, like an individual soldier, help not only our comrades, but we inspire others. Catholics are gradually building up institutions and groups that will help writers/creators build on a solid foundation, like the Catholic Writers Guild and the film program at John Paul the Great Catholic University.

The problem is we have become too passive. Faith means actions, or works. We are told that faith without works is dead. Can we now speak and use our minds in a more positive way now? Can we now, by God’s help, be the David to the Hollywood Goliath? But I can hear it now: “It’s too big. You can’t stop it. It’s impossible.” We don’t have to “stop” Hollywood but we can be the disinfectant. We can let them know what we think.

If we don’t do something now then we are defeated without a fight. Just go to Church, come home and worry, or not, about our media culture and the bad way so many of our neighbors have chosen to live. “Hey. What can I do? Everybody just does what they want and who am I to tell them different?”

We are told, as the laity, to evangelize, and to give people the whole package, not: “Hi. Jesus Christ is the Son of God. He loves you and died for you, and here’s a pamphlet that explains it all. Bye.” We should engage others politely, and at the appropriate time, with our worldview. Some will respond negatively and I know that can discourage us, but we can try again with someone else or at least, post here.

The Teaching Authority of the Church is given the responsibility to pass on the whole truth, including how we should live and how to respond to the various crises of today. And her words are not just for us but for all men of good will. Because the ‘father of lies’ is going to make sure some are going to tell us to do wrong every day.

Finally, I can hear the “I can’t have any fun or enjoy life anymore” crowd chiming in. Or, as in a recent thread: “If everything’s a sin, how can I enjoy life or have fun?” To the point of mentioning eating ice cream as being sinful.

Like all good and worthwhile things, it takes effort, but ask anyone who’s taken the time to learn how to do something well, and you’ll see that it’s worth it. We should get out of the habit of watching immoral movies and TV. And exchange being passive and sit down with ourselves, and ask: “What are the other things that interest me that I can do that are not an offense to my beliefs?” Sports, painting, crafts, reading good books, and making things come to mind.

Peace and God Bless,

Ed

 

[Portrait]

I certainly don’t think all art is good for us, or that it is some kind of god. I’m all for ripping into bad art when people are mistaking it for something higher-quality. I just don’t like people claiming that depictions of violence are never acceptable, or that problems aren’t worth discussing.

By “encourages thought”, I mean just that- it gets people thinking and discussing things they normally don’t. When the people at my school read Hunger Games and watched the movie, they began discussing serious topics. Where our culture is headed. How there is a disconnect in our minds between our entertainment and our day-to-day lives. What we should do when others face oppression. How often we support evils without even considering what is actually happening. Whether the adults in our lives want what’s best for us, whether they can protect us, and how much we can depend on them. The story called us to reexamine our own lives and the systems we are a part of. Hunger Games is an interesting example, though, since violence in the media is actually a major theme, and it’s not considered OK. Hunger Games- despite the violence- did inspire many of us to fight our own battles and consider how to resist the evils we support without meaning to.

Thinking is good for us because it causes us to catch the flaws in our own ideas and be exposed to new ones that work. It helps us solve problems and alter ourselves for the better. I’m essentially saying that analyzing things and questioning them is a very good thing, and movies that encourage this have at least one positive affect. For me, the ultimate goal of thinking and observing is to discover objective truth. Perhaps that isn’t important to you, but I don’t think it’s a bad goal to have.

I’m not saying that all the discussions about Hunger Games involved particularly deep levels of thought. Some people talked about how much they liked the main character. Some discussed the plot and setting. Some questioned its originality and believability. Some tried to figure out how they would try to survive in the same situation. I don’t think any of that was bad for us, though. It is not “sitting passively”, it is actively processing our entertainment/art and determining whether it is worthwhile and why we like it. We are learning about ourselves.

I don’t know why you’re arguing against thought. I already said that most movies have too much excessive violence and sex, and that Hollywood self-censoring a little would be doing all of us a favor. I simply think that not all movies that contain violence are bad for us, and that thinking is a good thing. I didn’t think that was a radical notion.

Dear kamaduck,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

Ed himself will probably want to respond to you, dear sister, but I have to say that I do not get the impression that he is “arguing against thought” per se, only thought which is ‘garbage’ and which therefore debases rather than ennobles. Unwholesome thought, be it in art or on film or television, only serves to poison the mind and demoralize the life, which is why the faithful must give a wide-berth to it. We are enjoined to think on “whatsoever things are pure” (Phillip. 4: 8), which necessarily means avoiding any debasing elements, from whatever source, which would leave a blot upon the conscience and a stain upon the character.

However, dear sister, I am gladened to hear that you think that there is much immoderate violence and immorality in modern films. You are quite right in saying that not all films that contain scenes of violence will necessarily have a negative impact upon us, but then very few people would, I think, subscribe to such an extreme position anyway. The issue in question is the frequency of the violence and whether it is extraordinarily graphic and mindless. As I said previously, many of the old 1950’s US Westerns contained some gun play and even some brutal fisticuffs. However, these were essential to the plot and the same films inculcated and often reinforced the moral virtues (cf. High Noon & Shane). Both of these films have become classics which have stood the test of time, not because of some sentimental yearning for the past, but because they treat of some very serious issues regarding duty and honour etc. which are perpetually relevant. To this extent they are culturally healthy and therefore acceptable viewing.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Kamaduck]

However, dear sister, I am gladened to hear that you think that there is much immoderate violence and immorality in modern films. You are quite right in saying that not all films that contain scenes of violence will necessarily have a negative impact upon us, but then very few people would, I think, subscribe to such an extreme position anyway. The issue in question is the frequency of the violence and whether it is extraordinarily graphic and mindless. As I said previously, many of the old 1950’s US Westerns contained some gun play and even some brutal fisticuffs. However, these were essential to the plot and the same films inculcated and often reinforced the moral virtues (cf. High Noon & Shane).

You think so, too? In that case, we’re essentially on the same page. You just like older movies and bigger words that I do.

Yes, I would agree that graphic and mindless violence doesn’t help anybody, and that such violence shows up way too often in current movies. I just think that some movies currently being produced, even some that are fairly violent, have a degree of artistic value. It’s therefore wrong to classify all modern movies as “garbage”, even if garbage does dominate the movie scene.

If we agree there, then I simply misunderstood your posts and ed’s (assuming ed agrees with you). Apparently, your position is much less extreme than I thought- to the extent that it’s almost the same as mine.

 

[JamesCaruso]

“Art” is not the holy of holies. Inviolate and untouchable. As someone who has actually written movie treatments and read those written and submitted to one large Hollywood studio, I know what it takes to build a world and create characters.

“encourages thought” of what? For what purpose?

“Art” is not, in most cases today, a good teacher. It debases men and women. “Art” has become a false idol to some. It arises from the thoughts of men who all have a certain worldview, and who pass their poisonous worldview on to new screenwriters and directors. It is not “holy” in a secular sense. Today, most of it is propaganda and a call to the wrong type of “action.”

I do hope that people here get to understand that “art” is not the new “god” and pure as snow. It is ugly, twisted and unhealthy for the mind and spirit in most cases. I am a professional editor and writer.

Words and images can lift people up, and they can bring people down to the depths of the human condition. I know because I’ve been watching all media carefully for some years now. Read or watch any competent movie review. The movie is always disassembled regarding its intent and meaning.

If we feed our intellect garbage while sitting passively and absorbing words and images passively, what good is it if it’s bad? It turns our thoughts to the bad humans can do and we forget about the good.

I’ve edited a lot of stories in many genres and you know what? They have to be family friendly. And we get letters and e-mails from people who tell us how our books have inspired them, encouraged them and had other positive effects on them. This is the legacy I and those I work with, want to leave the world.

What legacy is the “art” of today leaving us?

Peace,
Ed

Every so often I see a fiction film that is inspirational, that strikes a resonant chord deep down. It makes me think that the art of writing and film making is at its best the unofficial Word of God. It doesn’t have to be a religious film at all, but its treatment of some human condition or situation reveals some timeless truth. It makes me believe that the purpose of all art should be bringing these timeless truths back to our consciousness in some new and refreshing way. They can tap into that same current from which the Scriptures came, which is the Holy Spirit who is present to every age, even though they usually do not pretend any religiosity.

Even those films that are off the mark in thought and speculation can have glimmers of timeless truths, but it takes an effort of the mind to reshape the meaning proposed by the artist. So, the Star Wars “force” may become a metaphor for aligning oneself with the Will of God, and the Matrix could become a metaphor for the spiritual battle of evil (cold, unfeeling, bent on domination) against the best values of the human race (love, courage, faith and hope). Sure, it bothers me that these and other fictions omit any reference to Almighty God, but I take them as complete fabrications for the purpose of entertainment and try to put the best construction on them that I can imagine. Most people believe that good will overcome evil in the end, and that may be all that one can take from one of these films, other than an appreciation for the photography, plot, special effects, and acting.

 

[edwest2]

Every so often I see a fiction film that is inspirational, that strikes a resonant chord deep down. It makes me think that the art of writing and film making is at its best the unofficial Word of God. It doesn’t have to be a religious film at all, but its treatment of some human condition or situation reveals some timeless truth. It makes me believe that the purpose of all art should be bringing these timeless truths back to our consciousness in some new and refreshing way. They can tap into that same current from which the Scriptures came, which is the Holy Spirit who is present to every age, even though they usually do not pretend any religiosity.

Even those films that are off the mark in thought and speculation can have glimmers of timeless truths, but it takes an effort of the mind to reshape the meaning proposed by the artist. So, the Star Wars “force” may become a metaphor for aligning oneself with the Will of God, and the Matrix could become a metaphor for the spiritual battle of evil (cold, unfeeling, bent on domination) against the best values of the human race (love, courage, faith and hope). Sure, it bothers me that these and other fictions omit any reference to Almighty God, but I take them as complete fabrications for the purpose of entertainment and try to put the best construction on them that I can imagine. Most people believe that good will overcome evil in the end, and that may be all that one can take from one of these films, other than an appreciation for the photography, plot, special effects, and acting.

Sadly, the original 3 Star Wars films were the last SF films I would recommend to anyone. Minimum violence, no profanity, clearly defined good and evil and a love story.

Then Alien. Why did we need a woman running around a spaceship, yelling profanity and a unique alien creature that parents found too scary as a toy for their kids so it got pulled off store shelves? And the graphic violence? The message is clear now. “Get used to it, because there’s more to come.”

Terminator was bad. A few sex scenes, one with a bit of partial nudity, profanity and graphic violence. A brilliant premise. Sad.

Terminator 2. An even more brilliant premise, but we get lots of profanity, graphic death, and a bit of nudity. Very sad. The “special extended edition” just doubles up on the profanity.

Matrix. Here we enter the dark, dark future (and the word dark would continue to appear over and over and over again in various media as time passed). The sexual situations were minimal, but the profanity was there. Too bad. I heard the other two weren’t very good. But I did see the Matrix: Reloaded. A sex scene, graphic violence, profanity. Anything to ruin a good SF film.

That was it for me. It was Hollywood saying to me, “Oh yeah, we’ll come up with some very good to great stuff but you’ll have to deal with the sex, partial nudity and profanity if ya wanna see it.” No thanks.

Peace,
Ed

 

[JamesCaruso]

Sadly, the original 3 Star Wars films were the last SF films I would recommend to anyone. Minimum violence, no profanity, clearly defined good and evil and a love story.

Then Alien. Why did we need a woman running around a spaceship, yelling profanity and a unique alien creature that parents found too scary as a toy for their kids so it got pulled off store shelves? And the graphic violence? The message is clear now. “Get used to it, because there’s more to come.”

Terminator was bad. A few sex scenes, one with a bit of partial nudity, profanity and graphic violence. A brilliant premise. Sad.

Terminator 2. An even more brilliant premise, but we get lots of profanity, graphic death, and a bit of nudity. Very sad. The “special extended edition” just doubles up on the profanity.

Matrix. Here we enter the dark, dark future (and the word dark would continue to appear over and over and over again in various media as time passed). The sexual situations were minimal, but the profanity was there. Too bad. I heard the other two weren’t very good. But I did see the Matrix: Reloaded. A sex scene, graphic violence, profanity. Anything to ruin a good SF film.

That was it for me. It was Hollywood saying to me, “Oh yeah, we’ll come up with some very good to great stuff but you’ll have to deal with the sex, partial nudity and profanity if ya wanna see it.” No thanks.

Peace,
Ed

And you’re right, “No thanks.”

I think you’re more advanced than me.

I don’t tolerate the explicit sex scenes at all anymore. It helps that I watch almost all movies by TV, which gives me the ability to switch channels in an instant. The violence doesn’t usually bother me, but maybe it does have an effect on my psyche that I am unaware of. I can see that it might diminish the respect we should have for the dignity and sacredness of life, and it does oftentimes cast the hero in the role of avenger or dispenser of justice, above any law including God’s law. Too much of it I suppose could warp one’s mind. Thankfully I gave up TV for Lent, and it has been no great loss. I did record Schindler’s List for viewing after Lent-- my friend called me during Lent to have me view it.

 

[edwest2]

I’m all for ripping into bad art when people are mistaking it for something higher-quality.
,snip

Thinking is good for us because it causes us to catch the flaws in our own ideas and be exposed to new ones that work. It helps us solve problems and alter ourselves for the better. For me, the ultimate goal of thinking and observing is to discover objective truth. Perhaps that isn’t important to you, but I don’t think it’s a bad goal to have.

I don’t know why you’re arguing against thought.

Sorry, if you took my question as confrontational. And without a specific example, I posed my question broadly. As I know, moviegoers go to see a movie for various reasons and there are those who think it’s usually harmless and a way to pass the time, others go to see what message they might get from it based on the commercials and previews, or those that just forget about it and wait for the next one, because “everyone” goes to the movies out of habit or because it’s something to do. As Portrait has pointed out so clearly, the topic is, should movies be censored. This immediately provokes a knee-jerk reaction from some that the 100% evil government will get involved. As I wrote elsewhere, we don’t need the government but we do need standards. Bedrock standards for, at the very least, Catholics.

I’m not arguing against thought. But since you brought it up, how do you determine which thoughts are good or bad? I mean that as a polite, honest question. The producers of movies have clearly shown us that they want us to join them on the elevator headed down to more graphic sex, graphic violence and lots of profanity.

I don’t go to movies looking for some revelation. I think schools should teach us how to think, but sadly, too many schools are unconcerned and don’t care for us to develop standards regarding thoughts and actions to help us in our daily lives. They are amoral at best and immoral at worst.

What I am talking about is an identity handed down from parents to children in a line that remained unbroken for a long time. My father and mother were not born in this country but their ideas stretched back to great-grandparents, their own parents and on to us children. Fathers and mothers did their best to pass on values that they could show us in daily life as really being beneficial for everyone in the family and beneficial for the community as a whole. Since we, as children, growing up in the 1950s and early 1960s, could clearly see, others, including our government and media, were part of shaping a society that was moral and decent and that worked!!! Good was demonstrated as being good and worthwhile! What a concept! Kids benefited, young adults benefited and older people benefited.

No, I am not saying there were no social problems that needed to be addressed at the time. Or that we were all perfect but we were constantly reinforced to behave in a virtuous manner by our parents, our relatives, our schools, our media and our government. And it led to fewer problems and cast right and wrong and good and bad behaviors in a clearly defined light for all to examine. We were taught that imitating the bad kids would be bad, and imitating the handful of bad adults around us would be bad. We were to be polite to all but to avoid those who did wrong in public. Their private lives were not our concern - at all. We knew that people did some things in secret. We got that. The solution? Stay away. And for the good kids that tried being bad, the police and their parents got involved, and it was strictly none of our business to gossip, spread rumors or point fingers.

Of course, we would come to the aid of anybody in need. But if others chose a different way to live, it was not up to us to force them to do differently. It was up to all of us to be virtuous because only by being virtuous could we be sensitive to what was wrong and avoid the consequences. Modesty, decency, self-restraint - all these things were drilled into our heads and not just because we were Catholics or other Christians but because it was obvious that these things worked. You name the situation and they worked.

The goal was never to say “I’m better.” All of us looked out for one another. Yes, there were those who had a drinking problem, and those who needed help, and they knew where to get that help. As a parent doesn’t want to see their own children suffer, we didn’t want to see our neighbors suffer either. So we had pleasant relationships with many of our neighbors. We had a little to a lot of fun with kids our age and respected our elders and enjoyed them as well. I recall neighbors coming over if my dad was working on the family car - sometimes just to talk or offer advice or even lend a hand or provide a tool he did not have. I miss that. I really do.

But that line of thinking and living was brutally severed starting in the late 1960s. Our trust in others was abused, our government began to turn against the truth and then it turned on marriage and created the fictional “marriage is only a contract” through No-Fault Divorce. Starting in the late 1960s, movies began to examine the dark, the ugly, the private, the profane and the sexual. All the bad began to appear on the big screen mixed with some good until about the mid-1980s, then the downward spiral in movies accelerated rapidly. It seemed that most any attractive actress had to appear topless or partly or mostly or all nude, and appear in sex scenes and play a fornicator or prostitute or “call girl.” It was dirty, ugly and put people’s minds on the wrong way to live. In some cases, providing “instructive” examples of how to do it wrong.

The moment the media became infected with wrong, that was the moment it began a slide into degeneracy. And it needs the light of the truth to be brought to bear on it. NOW.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Baelor]

1. Find other ways to enjoy life that do not involve most movies, and keep track of what’s going on through reviews, Catholic and otherwise. Keep other Catholics informed.

Anyone who has no other way to enjoy life needs a lot more help than this advice can provide.

1. Contact your Bishop and tell him the same thing. Ask him to encourage Catholics to rid themselves of all movies that will darken us, and to set up collection and disposal centers so that this material will be destroyed.

Why? Just throw them away. And the bishops and priests should advise on this matter only what the Church teaches – pornography and pornographic violence are sinful; everything else is determined by the individual conscience.

And movies that do not promote human decency and human dignity are automatically out.

**
But this is simply not a moral requirement in any way. How would one even determine this? Why have I asked you this question in almost every post on every single thread and received no response?**

“encourages thought” of what? For what purpose?

Thought is an intrinsic good. It needs no justification other than itself.

“Art” is not, in most cases today, a good teacher.

Art need not be a teacher.

I do hope that people here get to understand that “art” is not the new “god” and pure as snow. It is ugly, twisted and unhealthy for the mind and spirit in most cases.

No one has claimed this.

I am a professional editor and writer.

I do not believe you even a little bit. Even if you were, so is Christopher Paolini, so it is safe to say that being a professional does not mean one is competent.

Read or watch any competent movie review. The movie is always disassembled regarding its intent and meaning.

If you were actually a professional editor and writer, you would know that it is basically impossible to determine with certainty the intent and meaning. Any competent reviewer knows this.

I’ve edited a lot of stories in many genres and you know what? They have to be family friendly.

No, they do not. This is simply not Church teaching.

What legacy is the “art” of today leaving us?

A legacy worth preserving: the idea that subtlety can exist in art. What a pleasant departure from straightforward didactic art, even if it is technically competent.

 

[Baelor]

You have the “choice” or you have the “freedom.” Most of the time, this translates into: “Hey. Sin is fun. I’m OK with it and you’re not me, so shut up already.” And this even from some Catholics who are careful to not admit calling it sinful.

Now you are just being pathetic. This is such a strawman is strains credulity. No one is arguing for “freedom” and “choice” in the context of sin.

The problem is we have become too passive.

No, the “problem” is that not everyone is an irrational heterodox one-note extremist like you. Few would argue that every movie produced by Hollywood is worth seeing from a Catholic perspective. We then do not watch movies we do not want to watch. Not everyone is required to push every cause.

Sadly, the original 3 Star Wars films were the last SF films I would recommend to anyone.

Why would you recommend those? What makes the Star Wars films good?

clearly defined good and evil

PLEASE STOP ASSERTING YOUR OWN BELIEFS AS MORAL REQUIREMENTS ON ALL CATHOLICS.

The Church does not require clearly-defined good and evil. Nowhere does it state that art must do that. Nowhere is that “requirement” able to be derived from Church teaching.

Do…you…understand? I can try using smaller words, because it really does not seem like anyone is getting through to you otherwise.

and a love story.

Blerg! That would be the least reason to recommend Star Wars.

Then Alien. Why did we need a woman running around a spaceship,

Because the movie was awesome. Ripley was the prototypical science-fiction heroine. The movie was well-written, well-acted, well-directed, and well-produced. Why would one not watch it?

Plus, there is tons of imagery condemning rape throughout the movie, so there is a good message too.

yelling profanity

Profanity in movies is not sinful.

and a unique alien creature that parents found too scary as a toy for their kids so it got pulled off store shelves?

Scary movies are not sinful. What is wrong with you? Seriously, what is wrong with you? Not a rhetorical question; I would love an answer.

And the graphic violence?

There is really only one scene of graphic violence, and it is definitely not anything that the Church would condemn as gratuitous or pornographic.

but the profanity was there.

Oh no! We must alert the Church elders!

I heard the other two weren’t very good. But I did see the Matrix: Reloaded. A sex scene, graphic violence, profanity. Anything to ruin a good SF film.

Believe me, not a single one of those things ruined the Matrix franchise, which was excellent (contrary to reviews).

That was it for me. It was Hollywood saying to me, “Oh yeah, we’ll come up with some very good to great stuff but you’ll have to deal with the sex, partial nudity and profanity if ya wanna see it.” No thanks.

Then do not watch it. But do not elevate yourself to the status of God by telling others what is or is not permissible on matters on which the Church has given deliberation to our consciences.

I’m not arguing against thought. But since you brought it up, how do you determine which thoughts are good or bad?

Good question. Other questions: should whether a movie intends to provoke particular particular thoughts matter? What about whether it actually does? How does one determine intent if the author is dead or does not speak? How does one determine the “message” of a movie?

Can you answer any of these questions? My guess is that you will not, if you even respond to this part of my post. Responses would undermine your argument, hence my expectation of your silence. I would love to be proven wrong.

Since we, as children, growing up in the 1950s and early 1960s, could clearly see, others, including our government and media, were part of shaping a society that was moral and decent and that worked!!!

Define “worked.” Remember that the Civil Rights movement had not yet occurred. Remember that society was fine for the white suburban middle class. Not so much for racial minorities, women, or the people dying over in Vietnam.

 

[Publisher]

Of course…“self censored”…Like I told my fundamentalist uncle who felt that TV should be censored…there is a small censoring device on your TV already…it’s called an “off button”…there is already a movie censoring protocol…don’t go to a movie you find objectionable…such a simple solution.

 

[JamesCaruso]

Sorry, if you took my question as confrontational…
And it needs the light of the truth to be brought to bear on it. NOW.
Peace,
Ed

Before the 50’s there were the burlesque shows-- before my time-- then in the 50’s there were the x-rated bars with adult films and the strip shows-- even before the topless bar rage-- but these things were invariably in what we called the red light district, probably close to or in the midst of the city’s prostitution, where only the most errant youths would venture, and then maybe only to glance in the bar windows, or drive through the area laughing at the spectacle of beckoning street walkers. Of course, some kids when they reached drinking age would dare to visit these bars. But they were in a taboo part of town, and one had to go out of his way to visit there.

Slowly, with progressively deteriorating film standards, more slowly in television, the writers and filmmakers began bringing the isolated, seamy side of the city into the neighborhood movie theater, and even into the once sacrosanct walls of the home by way of the living room TV. I can remember growing up and wondering, while watching a television show, “Doesn’t this bother anyone? Am I the only one here who is sorely tempted watching this stuff?” I can remember so many occasions closing my eyes in the darkened TV room or theater, embarrassed if anyone should see me, because I couldn’t watch this stuff-- I didn’t want to sin. But I can also remember getting to the point where it didn’t matter. I must have thought to myself, “This is the way the world is.” Thankfully, I had good upbringing and I returned to the values of my youth over time and not in any straight line.

It’s not too difficult for me to navigate through all this garbage nowadays, but I grew up with it, and like you, I remember the “before.” I wonder how it is for kids growing up today. They don’t remember the “before.” They only know what is now and to them what is now has always been. It’s the norm; they don’t know any difference. It must be immeasurably more difficult for them than it was for me, and I didn’t fare well for much of the time myself.

Also, I had the distinct benefit of a parochial school education taught by good nuns, and later, Catholic High School and Catholic College. So I had every advantage imaginable to help me contend with this very difficult area that is a constant assault on moral living. Today, many parents can’t afford parochial schools. CCD classes are hardly as effective in inculcating the faith as immersion in eight years of Catholic grade school, with religion as a major subject, and a Catholic point of view permeating all the other subjects, plus the good example of the nuns, priests, and brothers to serve as models for holy living.

I can’t leave it on this sour note. I was heartened to see the largest outpouring of young people ever at this year’s March for Life on the National Mall. I also remember the outpouring of youth for Pope John Paul II’s visit to America, and that was a while back. Somehow, I think a large number of today’s youth are finding their way through the moral minefields laid in part by our indifference, laziness and unwillingness to take action over these past 50 years. I am hopeful we will see a rejection of society’s moral lethargy by our youth and an upward revolution toward a moral society that will put the downward revolution of the 60’s to shame.

 

[VirtusTransitus]

Of course…“self censored”…Like I told my fundamentalist uncle who felt that TV should be censored…there is a small censoring device on your TV already…it’s called an “off button”…there is already a movie censoring protocol…don’t go to a movie you find objectionable…such a simple solution.

Of course this is true in a simplistic sense. But the arguments that are being made here are not simple.

I’m not a fan of censorship.

I don’t think there’s much the government can or should do.

I think our culture is so morally bankrupt that even Catholics and Christians have become relativists and use the term “art” or “social commentary” or “thought provoking” to make themselves feel better that they are allowing subversive and morally vapid information to invade their own psyche and, most regrettably, the minds of their families.

I’m losing this battle on a daily basis in my own home. I fight as much as I can. And I’m very careful not to fall into scrupulosity. But the war is being waged and so many folks don’t even understand they’re in a battle. I can’t even turn the radio on in my car at 8am dropping my kids off at school.