On Sex in Movies

You regular readers of this site already sense that we have a strict standard about theatrical depictions of sex, or any romantic affection for that matter.  The “strictness” you sense is actually greater than you might think.  It is hidden to a degree by what is not seen here, that is, all of the movies we have considered watching but did not.  Almost all the job of censoring in our household has been completed before the “Play” button has been pushed and the review written.

Now we know others far stricter than ourselves, and we might even agree with them at times.  If it came to it, if a man or women were to err one way or the other in regard to depictions of sex and romance, he or she should err on the side of avoidance.  Joseph ran away at Potiphar’s advance, while Samson let Delilah entice him and the young man in Proverbs 7 had his life destroyed by the harlot.  There is little difference in the nature of temptation between a real person and a virtual presentation of one, such as we find in film.

Sex and romance, however, are treated far more liberally by Christians we know when placed in something honored with the label “work of art.”  The thinking goes that a movie presents something unreal, in that two actors are merely pretending, and that a movie may present a love scene but give a proper moral presentation of it (e.g., adulterous sex as destructive sex).

And, no surprise, the Bible is frank in talking about sex.  We have heard unbelievers squeal with delight in talking about the hypocrisy of prudish Christians who don’t know that their favorite book contains an entire book on eroticism (the Song of Solomon).  So, taking the Bible as a standard for story-making, it appears that there is something to credible, aesthetic representations of sex, sexuality, and romance in film, these all being essential parts of our reality and God’s creation.

Yet several problems exist for those who prefer liberty to strictness.  There is, for instance, a great difference between the medium of film and the medium of books.  These are not just different technologies that have different effects on the brain, but the mode of representation is wholly different.  The actions of a story in a book hide behind the books’ words, which do not necessarily translate to explicit images in every reader’s mind.  We may read that so-and-so “knew” so-and-so in the Bible, but only the perverse are intent on imagining what that looked like.  Film, by contrast, presents a visual image so that nothing is hidden if a filmmaker does not want it to be.   You do not have to read about so-and-so “knowing” so-and-so; the director can just show it to you.

The Bible is clear that nakedness is shameful when displayed to the wrong kinds of people or in the wrong context.  Adam and Eve covered themselves with fig leaves immediately after the Fall, and Noah’s sons covered their eyes from seeing their drunken, naked father. It is hard to imagine any movie nudity (or even partial nudity) that is not shameful for both the actor and the viewer, who are both anonymous to each other.

This problem extends beyond partially explicit or explicit sex scenes, however.  Suppose we had a Christian movie company that wanted to make updated versions of great movies.  This company employs actors who are Christians, and one of the scripts calls for a dramatic kiss between the hero and the heroine.  The actor playing the hero happens to be a married man.  Now what should his wife think of the script that demands her husband not only pretend to love another woman, but also to show that love physically?

Most people tend not to think in these terms, instead passively accepting what the screen tells them, that the actors on-screen are simply good-looking actors playing fictional people who do fictional things.   But actors are real people required to physically do all the things they must in a movie.  That may include passionately kissing a woman who is not even an acquaintance.  Such an act — even if it were pretended on-stage — would not be tolerated in good churches.  And, at best, it would be very weird to stare at two strangers sharing a scene of any degree of physical pleasure.  But this is actually what we do when watching movies.

Our general thinking goes like this: we wouldn’t want either of us to pretend to love somebody else physically (or emotionally for that matter), especially when it’s being recorded for all of posterity to remember.  Not even a peck on the cheek.  So what are supposed to think and feel when we see two real people — not just characters in a movie — being recorded while pretending to have sex?  Or even pretending to be physically affectionate?  It seems like it should be repulsive.  Would you want your wife, or your daughter, or your mother, in such a scene with another man?  Wouldn’t you squirm if you watched such a scene with them?

So that we are not accused of putting heavy burdens on others, however, we are simply not sure that acts of viewing any onscreen physical affection are always and everywhere sinful.  Most might be, but you know better than we do your motives towards God and fellow man.  It does seem better to be strict rather than loose on this issue, however, and that means that many movies praised by the league of contemporary film critics and moviegoers will not even be mentioned here.

Postscript: There are ways that sex can be effectively used but hidden in a movie.  Consider a scene from the older version of 3:10 to Yuma.  The evil Ben Wade sets out to seduce the female bartender, and when she looks deeply into his eyes, we understand what is going to happen.  Then there is a cut and the next shot shows them walking out of a private room.  We know what has happened without asking, the needs of the plot are accomplished, but nothing explicit has been put before our eyes.  Obviously, most movies these days do not go for tact, even though sex and nudity are never necessary to a visual narrative.

The Problem with Roger Ebert (and other so-called critics)

In his recent Answer Man column, Roger Ebert fielded an absurd question and gave his response:

Reader’s Question: My sister heard about a movie called “Corpus Christi,” in which Jesus is depicted as being gay. Is there such a movie? That would be sad.Ebert: It would be sad if it was a bad movie, not if it was a good one. A movie’s quality is separate from its subject.

If that’s the case, the potential is limitless. We could make a masterpiece about Roger Ebert the homicidal maniac. Or better: a great movie that defames Ebert’s family and friends, mocks his entire career, and jokes constantly about his past girth problems and his current health problems. Undoubtedly, if it were really great, Roger would give it four stars.

This idea, that the quality of a movie can be disconnected from its morals, has been Ebert’s fundamental presupposition for his entire working career. We have seen Ebert say again and again that “a movie is great not because of what it’s about, but because of how it’s about what it’s about.” This is the same thing as saying that the telling of the story is the only thing; a story’s contents and messages are not at all relevant. While we don’t dismiss the need to tell stories well, it’s clear that Ebert trots out the old “art for art’s sake” dictum whenever he needs it. So you want a movie about a gay Jesus? “Art for art’s sake and all beauty is truth!”says Roger. Ebert has sometimes followed this idea to its extremes, calling a nihilist’s nightmare (Pulp Fiction) a masterpiece and endlessly praising the “ground-breaking” Deep Throat (not the Watergate informant). In fact, if there’s one thing we’ve learned by reading Ebert for years, it’s that he enjoys naked women. He just likes his pornography cloaked by things that appear artsy.

Now, though Ebert says “a movie’s quality is separate from its subject,” he’s by necessity a hypocritical humanist. Roger can’t go too far in throwing out all values, or else he’d get the values he doesn’t like thrown back in his face. So of course he’s given zero stars–a very rare rating for him–to movies about which he thought the subject intolerable. The pseudo-documentary, C.S.A.: Confederate States of America, a what-if fantasy abou the Confederacy winning the Civil War, received Ebert’s utter disapproval because it came across as far too serious about its subject (even though the movie was attempting to be ironic). Similarly, Ebert castigated September Dawn for its portrayal of Mormons as murdering, intolerant fanatics because “the vast majority of the members of all religions, I believe and would argue, don’t want to kill anybody.” “There isn’t anything to be gained in telling this story in this way,” says Ebert, because “it generates bad feelings on all sides, and at a time when Mormons are at pains to explain they are Christians, underlines the way that these Mormons consider all Christians to be ‘gentiles.’” So in this case, the political and social morals that the movie depicts make a difference. Fancy that, the possibility that a movie will alter its viewers’ morals matters greatly after all! We wouldn’t want people to start hating Mormons because of September Dawn, would we? As usual, Ebert allows his liberal-humanist views to determine his movie experience and opinion, even when it counters his “a movie about anything can be great” dictum.

So morals of stories matter to everyone–even to those who say they don’t. It only depends, for the person involved, which morals a movie touts are important. For Ebert, a good movie about a gay Jesus Christ is like a good movie about hardcore porn: a “cultural triumph” that advances the causes of social progress. For almost all critics, the same is true. A movie can be good, so long as it’s socially acceptable or provocative, according with the idols of the day.

But for Christians, the entirety of Scripture lays out the rules for man-made stories by providing the moral foundations that should underlie them and by providing numerous stories that serve as capable models and examples. It probably goes without saying for you, but the Word of God is the basis for all thinking, watching, and reviewing of movies. We’ve seen many Christians give into the invented standards of secular critics, praising 300 for ground-breaking visuals or desiring to watch some actor’s stellar performance, while totally ignoring a movie’s contents and messages. Sometimes we want to let others–scriptwriters, film critics, actors who blah-blah about their new film–tell us how to view a movie. But as followers of Jesus Christ, there’s a better way: “be as wise as serpents and as innocent as doves.”

“Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.” We acknowledge that this is sometimes difficult, but this is where we’d like to be. Select what movies you watch, and what stories you ingest, carefully.

On Movie Ratings

It’s difficult to say whether movie ratings–G, PG, etc.–are total shams or not. On the one hand, they give you a standard by which to gauge what a movie contains. On the other hand, the standards are vague and misused, and they have changed wildly over time.

Let’s give an example. We’ve had enormous problems with PG movies from the ’70s and early ’80s, before the PG-13 rating came out in about 1985 (because of the “heart” scene in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom). In those years, movies got shoved into either ‘PG’ or ‘R’, which apparently meant that a movie was either family-friendly or for adults only. On that basis a movie like Barry Lyndon still carries a ‘PG’ rating, even though it has a half-second long orgy scene that would make Internet pornographers proud (unfortunately, we discovered this by experience). Similarly, a so-called family movie that critics say will “make you and your kids cheer and weep”–that is, Breaking Away–contained so much “mild” profanity in the first twenty minutes that we couldn’t imagine showing it to an 18-year old (we did not finish it). And Planet of the Apes, with a G rating, contains Charlton Heston’s bare backside.

The ‘PG-13′ rating alleviated these problems only to a degree. Filmmakers can now shoot for ‘PG’ or ‘PG-13′, the optimum ratings for big-budget summer fare that will be marketed heavily to children, teenagers, and adults. No one wants a ‘G’ rating, unless the name attached to it is Pixar or Disney, because ‘G’ does not sell to all key demographic groups and will not make as much money as, say, ‘PG-13′. Meanwhile, what is considered ‘R’ today is so horrific that ‘NC-17′ has become tantamount to pornography. There are unwritten codes that the MPAA ratings board uses to separate the PG fare from the PG-13 and the PG-13 from the R. These codes, you probably have experienced, are both silly and arbitrary and the difference between PG and PG-13 matters to few anyway. In recent years the board has been including brief descriptions along with ratings. For example, Batman Begins is rated PG-13 for “intense action violence, disturbing images and some thematic elements,” while Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban is rated PG for “frightening moments, creature violence and mild language.” So what’s the difference between “frightening moments” and “disturbing images”? And what in the world are “thematic elements”?

Let’s go back in time for a moment. In the so-called glory days of Hollywood, the first several decades of the twentieth century, major studios stuck to the standards known as the Hays Code. Some of the highlights from that code are as follows:

General Principles

1. No picture shall be produced that will lower the moral standards of those who see it. Hence the sympathy of the audience should never be thrown to the side of crime, wrongdoing, evil or sin.
2. Correct standards of life, subject only to the requirements of drama and entertainment, shall be presented.
3. Law, natural or human, shall not be ridiculed, nor shall sympathy be created for its violation.

Applications

• Nudity and suggestive dances were prohibited.
• The ridicule of religion was forbidden, and ministers of religion were not to be represented as comic characters or villains.
• The depiction of illegal drug use was forbidden, as well as the use of liquor, “when not required by the plot or for proper characterization.”
• Methods of crime (e.g. safe-cracking, arson, smuggling) were not to be explicitly presented.
• References to sex perversion (such as homosexuality) and venereal disease were forbidden, as were depictions of childbirth.
• The language section banned various words and phrases that were considered to be offensive.
• Murder scenes had to be filmed in a way that would discourage imitations in real life, and brutal killings could not be shown in detail. “Revenge in modern times” was not to be justified.
• The sanctity of marriage and the home had to be upheld. “Pictures shall not imply that low forms of sex relationship are the accepted or common thing.” Adultery and illicit sex, although recognized as sometimes necessary to the plot, could not be explicit or justified and were not supposed to be presented as an attractive option.
• Portrayals of miscegenation were forbidden.
• “Scenes of Passion” were not to be introduced when not essential to the plot. “Excessive and lustful kissing” was to be avoided, along with any other treatment that might “stimulate the lower and baser element.”
• The flag of the United States was to be treated respectfully, and the people and history of other nations were to be presented “fairly.”
• “Vulgarity,” defined as “low, disgusting, unpleasant, though not necessarily evil, subjects” must be treated within the “subject to the dictates of good taste.” Capital punishment, “third-degree methods,” cruelty to children and animals, prostitution and surgical operations were to be handled with similar sensitivity.

The Hays Code was slowly abandoned during the ’50s and eventually was junked in the late ’60s. Clearly, none of these standards are in place today; you may see all of them violated in one movie preview shown on daytime TV. This is not, however, to say that Hollywood movies from the 1940s were necessarily more “moral” than those today, although we believe that that’s generally the case. One of the most praised movies ever, Casablanca, blatantly glorifies the thought of adultery, and we have seen a number of Westerns that do in fact glorify the killing of Indians. But the now-discarded Hays Code, compared to present-day practices, demonstrates changes in cultural temperaments. Yes, there once was a time where standards existed. This is why, as a general rule, you will be fairly safe with an “old” movie. You knew this already, but the Hays Code shows you why.

Today there is only the shadow of a code in the MPAA’s ratings, and it will not take much more cultural disintegration before G, PG, and PG-13 are totally meaningless, if they aren’t already.

What’s an adult or parent to do if official movie ratings are vague and unhelpful? We use a site called Kids-in-Mind, though we don’t have children of age to watch movies. This is for our own use because our ideal is to try to watch that which is “true, lovely, and of good report.” We wouldn’t recommend that anyone work for the Kids-in-Mind site, and we wouldn’t pay for their services if they required subscriptions. The reason is obvious: someone is watching all the junk and writing down every four-letter word and piece of skin shown. Nevertheless, as long as the information is there, we’ll use it.

SPOILER ALERTS!

Most people who come here seeking a review of a new theatrical or DVD release have not seen the movie.  Conversely, most people looking for an older review of a movie have seen the movie.  Frankly, we’re more interested in analysis, which means discussing what the last acts of a movie mean.  So the general rule is that if we’re reviewing an older movie (pre-2007), we’re likely to discuss its ending.

You are now sufficiently warned.

FAQ

Hey, why are you’re giving away the end of a movie?

Most people seeking a review of a new theatrical or DVD release have not seen the movie.  Conversely, most people looking for an older movie review have seen the movie.  Frankly, we’re more interested in analysis, which means discussing what the last acts of a movie mean.  The general rule is that if we’re reviewing an older movie (pre-2007), we’re likely to talk about its ending. You are now sufficiently warned.

So what makes this a “Christian” movie review site?

Every movie critic has a set of standards for watching movies.  Those standards determine what they think is good and bad.  Critics rarely show their hand, so to speak, in talking about their standards, but standards exist for them nonetheless.

We’re Christians, and we believe in the essential dogmas of the faith, as spelled out in the well-known early church creeds.  So, by putting the generic label “Christian” on our website, we are trying to give our readers a quick and dirty idea of what our standards are.

But doesn’t “Christian” mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people?

Yes.  So you know, we think the Ten Commandments are good, basic standards for the depiction of morality and ethics in film.  The Bible itself, God’s storybook, is a fine measure for acceptable portrayals of sex and violence.  It also, inescapably, provides the correct, basic framework for the aesthetic representation of reality (natural and supernatural) in film.

Why discuss movies?  Aren’t they all awful these days?

Pretty much, in both a moral sense and an aesthetic one.  So we’re highly selective about what we watch, which might be why you can’t find what you’re looking for here.

Still, everyone we know watches a lot of them. Movies are the dominate, popular, entertainment artform of our lifetime.  They were going back to the early twentieth century.  So to watch and analyze movies is, in part, to understand the everchanging presuppositions of our national (and world) culture. We’ve found that while many people know how to be entertained by movies, few know how to watch them.  We’re here to help.

Well, how can you help?

If anything, we try to point out the meaning of characters and structure.  All stories have a beginning and an end, and most have heroes and villains.  Who are the heroes and why are they heroes?  Now ask the same question about villains.  And why does the movie end the way it does, and what does that tell us about God, reality, government, family, etc.?  Every culture answers these kinds of questions in its art.  Since we live in an age of false religions and lies freely praised throughout mass media, it’s best to be on guard about these things.

Movies and TV are mediums that make their audiences passive.  You can sit and watch a two-hour movie without every thinking about what it’s telling you.  To ask the basic questions in the above paragraph is to break out of that passivity.  We think that Christians, presupposing the truths contained in God’s Word, are to be active, engaged participants in art.

Of course, our interpretation of a movie is not the final or ultimate one.  We invite you to disagree with us in the comments sections.

Why don’t you talk about my favorite actor’s performance?

Why should we?  An actor’s job is to be charismatic and compelling, and lead actors are the main marketing tools for their movies.  But very rarely is a movie worth watching for a performance.  (An exception is the song-and-dance movies of the ’30s, ‘40, and ‘50, which were designed to be watched just for the performances.)  The plot, the characters, and the messages are far more important.  Besides, actors are given far too much credit for doing much that’s out of their control.  The director, cinematographer, costume designer, makeup artist, and the editors determine much of an actor’s performance.  There might be ten takes for a scene, for instance, but the editors have to choose just one of those takes.  The actor better hope he looks good in it.  So a good editor can make or break an acting performance.  Why don’t we discuss the great movie editors?

But we do like Robert DuVall.

What about the Oscars?

A glitz-and-glamour fest on the surface.  A big marketing tool for the movie studios underneath it all.  Rarely, if ever, does the best anything win the Oscar it should.  In short, we don’t care.

Aren’t movies far worse than they used to be?

In certain ways, pretty much.  Hollywood drop-kicked the Hays Code in the late 1950s, which led almost immediately to the depiction of rebellion and nudity, among other things.  Over time, with cultural decline, just about anything could be shown in a movie.  And now most things are shown in mainstream movies.

In other ways, they are better.  We prefer the Stanislavsky acting method to the overacting of the first-half of the twentieth century.  Narrative techniques have improved, too, as they did with novels from 1750 to 1850.  These improvements, though, do not necessarily translate into better all-around movies — that’s why The Third Man could’ve been the best movie of the year each year of the last two decades.

In other ways, movies today are no different than yesterday.  Secular humanism and socialism — major movements since the birth of film, both of which are unbiblical — have been promoted in movies during every decade of movie history.

But aren’t I protected by the ratings system?

Not really.  The ratings system doesn’t account for theology or ideology, so a G-rated movie could blatantly break the First Commandment pretty easily.  See, for example, almost anything from Disney since the 1980s.

The ratings system is a kind of game, too.  Studios know that big-budget movies can’t receive G- or R-ratings, because movies with those ratings do not make as much money as PG or PG-13. (The current exception is Pixar.)  They therefore throw in something unnecessary — be it a few curse words or a love scene — in order to get the PG or PG-13 rating they want.

You seem to hate everything! What do you really recommend?

Rarely watch anything.  Spend time with the family.  Read a book out loud; it will occupy several days and everyone will love it.  And you’ll be having good interaction with people you should be having good interaction with.  (This rarely happens when you all gather around a screen and stare at it.)

Short of not watching anything, be very selective.  Almost all movies are here today and gone tomorrow, just as you have never heard of 99.5% of all novels ever published.  There are elaborate marketing systems designed to get you to watch dozens of movies a year, but very few of them deserve to have your money spent on them.  When you spend money on something, that means you are telling them to make more of it.

That wasn’t a recommendation!

Okay, start with these: Tender Mercies, Babette’s Feast, The Third Man, Amadeus, and the two Babe movies. These are mostly to a contemporary taste.

From there, try the best movies from the some of the best directors: John Ford, Frank Capra, Akira Kurosawa, Buster Keaton, David Lean.  There are other great directors to mention, but they are not always reliable in terms of content.

Also, try to reconfigure your tastes to appreciate movies from the 1920s to the 1950s.

About Us and Our Ratings

We’re husband and wife.  Two moviewatchers and bookreaders who enjoy stories.  We think that God told the ultimate story in His Word, and that the creatures made in His image are compelled to write stories that reflect parts of that ultimate story.  Of course these creatures are inherently sinful.  They are likely to pervert the truth and praise lies.  So we, as Christians and moviewatchers, need to filter the truth from the lies.

The Apostle Paul said “whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right: think about such things.” This is tough to do when it comes to movies.  That’s because movies are a seductive way of storytelling, and people can make evil look good in storytelling.  We think that Christians tend to turn off their critical thinking skills when going to the theater or shelling out $5 for a Blockbuster rental. They are merely looking to be entertained.  All the while, these Christians ignore the moral truths contained in movies — many of which promote murder, adultery, and child rebellion.  Worse, they plop their children in front of the TV and allow them to watch a bad or dumb movie over and over.

Recently, evangelical subculture has rebelled against Hollywood immorality.  They have put a lot of effort into promoting “Christian” movies, which are the same as any mainstream movie except for being “cleaner.”  It is almost a guarantee these days that when a piece of art is labelled “Christian,” that means it’s crummy.  In the case of Christian movies, bad acting, bad writing, and bad direction abounds.  We like stories with good morals, but not at the expense of craftsmanship.  God demands our best because our best glorifies Him.  If the best cartoon evangelicals can muster forth is VeggieTales, and the best special effects movie we can make is The Omega Code, and the best “Christian” actor we can produce is Carmen, we have big problems.  Our subculture produces terrible craftsman and shoddy artworks. We deserve to be laughed at.

Our aim here, with each review, is to try our best to analyze movies presuppositionally.  We start with the basic truths of the Christian faith — the essential dogmas — and then look at what a movie’s telling us about the world.   This approach allows us a standard of objectivity.  We can figure out what’s entertaining but stupid, and what’s wellcrafted but immoral.  Occasionally, we will see something beautiful and true.

Our categories for ratings are Entertainment, Intelligence, and Morality. Obviously it’s a little absurd to quantify these. We sometimes feel silly giving them a number, especially morality. Still, as readers of reviews, we all want a quick reference guide. Thumbs up, thumbs down. That’s simple and straightforward.

The best movies, for us, will be high in all three categories. We don’t think a movie is good or recommendable if it has a high rating in Entertainment but a low one in Morality. In fact, if it’s not a ‘7′ in Morality or higher, we think there are better things to do than watch that movie. We try to tell you about objectionable material, but the best reference for that is Kids-in-Mind.

The point of this site is to build an online review library. We can’t afford to review new releases, nor do we have the credentials to attend press screenings. We just write reviews as time allows.

Finally, we’re curmudgeons when it comes to movies. Remember those two guys in the balcony on The Muppet Show? Well, that’s one of us. The other is a lovely, sweet, adorable lady. Rare it is when we find a movie we really liked. Praise from us is a high recommendation.

Remember always: the point of our lives is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever, and that includes glorifying Him in what movies we watch.