Tuesday, July 26, 2005

Do decent films exist?

Is it possible to voice disapproval to a movie unnecessarily depicting or glorifying immoral acts, yet still pay the 8 bucks at the theater and add to the company's profit? Am I not at least tacitly giving my approval to a movie in its entirety, which may be mostly good, but in which the director has decided to insert a scene where there is depicted explicitly an immoral act (e.g. fornication) committed between the main characters. Is it truly necessary to the story to depict this? So how can I condemn on the one hand, and approve on the other.

The last time I saw a movie, I went to some pains to try to find a movie that wouldn't throw this behaviour into my face. There was some objectionable material, but not on the scale of gravely immoral impure acts. As to the other material, my friend covered my eyes, and told me when I could reopen them. The nice thing about the movie was that the heroine was chaste, and not messing around with the hero as in so many other movies, which spoils them.

However, I can't say that anything else out there, has really struck me as being good to watch. I've got into a heated argument over this, and i just wanted to take a gander at other people's thoughts. This is in relation to the ISLAND, which has an interesting premise, but includes a sex scene between the two main characters. Which my honorable opponent declares offends him and it's deplorable, but he was glad that it was "not graphic", and "artisticly done". To which I say, I'm sick of it all, I'm not giving a dime, and if I see this movie for everything else that's interesting, I want to have the power to edit what is objectionable from my viewing eyes.


  1. Anonymous8:48 AM

    Peachy, dear, you are a wonderufl man! Keep it up, and don't let ol' dumbhead on Quid Hoc get you down.

    He's got this thing about art which blinds him to that rank desinsitization, so prevalent today, which you rightly condemn.


  2. Anonymous8:49 AM

    Mispelled desensitization. Sorry. Also mispelled wonderful. In a hurry....sigh. So messy.

    We'll talk more ont this later...I wish Joe were around. This was the subject of a two-hour phone conversation last week. (I won.) (-;

  3. Actually, the eight bucks you spend do not benefit the company that made the movie. If the movie is in the theatre, the theatre has already paid the necessary price for the privilage of screening the film. Whether you come or not does not dramaticaly affect the theatre's or the producer's profits. They make their mony from merchanise and snackfood. You can do more to hurt the movie by participating in polls.

    Oh, and you do actually have the power to edit objectionable material from movies before you see them. There are many companies which take mainsteam movies, edit them, and distribute them at no added cost. My family subscribes to 'Clean Films.com' which is one such company. I can tell you that I've never seen a sex scene or heard foul language (aside form the occasional 'damn') from a movie rented from said company. There are other similar comanies I know, so you do have the power.

  4. But they do keep track of what movies attract the most people & they go for those.

  5. JMJ Before seeing a movie that I know little or nothing about, a good thing to do is find out exactly why it has the rating it does. There are a few sights such as screenit.com or kids-in-mind.com
    These and a few other websites give IN DETAIL (i.e. exactly how many times a bad word is said and in what context) the reasons why a film received the rating it did. I believe that the two sites above charge a fee for their service but I have found others that are just as good and do not charge. These sites are esp. helpful if you are taking children to the show, at least that way you will know before hand and walking out won't have to be the option.

  6. Jen, I kind of like desinsitization.
    Wow, I just got off Quid Hoc Est. "Shadows & dust" brought up some good & vaild points, but I'd have to give this one to Peach! *Long distance high five.* After reading the debate, I started doing my own research. The Catholic Bishops (http://www.usccb.org/movies) said, "This film contains much action violence, scattered profanity, rough and crude language, mild sexual encounter and innuendo, an irreligious comment, a birth scene and nonexplicit urination scenes." They did like the life issues that were brought up, though. (One of the things John brought up.) Decentflims.com (http://www.decentfilms.com/reviews/island2005.html) said, "Much strong action violence; some profane, obscene, and crude language; fleeting pin-up images; a disturbing childbirth scene, an on-screen sexual encounter, and a couple of toilet scenes (all non-explicit); a couple of theologically confused remarks."
    I have to say, after all of this, I'm totally going to see it for myself. (Although some of the reviews made me think of The Giver, which made me uberly depressed when I read it in the 6th grade.)

  7. Posting on movies is the new thing to do these days. The most recent movie I saw was Mr. and Mrs. Smith (that's the new one). It was pretty good, but you guys would probably hate it.

  8. For a better idea of why I initially recommended The Island, read my review on lifesite. It does contain some minor plot spoilers, so if that's the sort of thing that bothers you and you're planning on watching the movie you probably shouldn't read it.



  9. Anonymous2:56 AM

    The Island doesn't have anything really objectionable, except for perhaps a little passionate kissing and skin barely below the shoulders. Yes, it is a scene of that sort, but it was not, firstly, gratuitous, and secondly, it was only two different camera shots played a few times in succession. It is designed to give you an emotional attachment to the characters. Even though this may have been achieved in a better way, it was not distasteful; there was no other reference to sex anywhere else in the movie.
    Whatever, maybe it is objectionable, I just don't think so.