R-Rated Movies

[Lost Boy]

I know it is frowned on to watch R-rated movies, but is it a commandment not to?

And if it is, how does that work in other countries?  Other countries do not have the same rating system for movies?

[JohnsonJones]

There have been talks about not seeing R-rated movies in the past, but I got a better recommendation at General Conference one year (I cannot remember which one or the speaker, only that it was at General Conference, I think it was from a Seventy) where the speaker gave the suggestion that if we would not let our little children watch it, then we should not be watching the movie.

Of course, there are those out there that will subject their little ones to all sorts of depravity, but in general I think most are more careful about what they will let their little children watch.  Adhering to that same principle can keep us watching what is moral and respectful.

Originally the word pornography applied to excessive violence, language, and sensuality.  Today it normally is referred to only blatant and abundant sensuality in an item rather than just excessive.  However, many decades ago when one referred to pornography, it referred to the original idea.  The Censure bureau was not just a matter over sensuality, but also violence and language.

Interestingly enough, I think a majority of what we see on TV and movies today would qualify as pornography if we utilized the standards from the 1940s. 

So, how can we avoid pornography (using the older definition than what we use today).  We can apply a standard (such as the one suggested above).  This idea to only watch what we would allow our little children to watch has no bounds based upon rating, but more upon content and quality.  This makes it easier to determine what one should be watching in foreign lands as opposed to what one should not be watching in foreign lands.

I travel quite a bit during the summers (and in fact, soon will be once again abroad) and using this basis keeps me analyzing what I should or should not watch when in other lands and other places.  It is rare to find myself watching anything over what would be rated PG in the US when in other nations when using this metric on whether this would be something I would let my littlest grandchild watch or not.  When applied to myself, it keeps me watching more uplifting and spiritually resounding shows typically.

I know my take and attitude on this is probably an anathema to many in the LDS church.  It seems among the members of the LDS church watching R-rated shows and movies (or PG-18, or other ratings in other nations) is trending more towards the normal attitudes of Saints the world over.  I know the church currently has lower standards than in the past with it's membership in the US and Europe, and as I stated, most of what is out there would have been considered pornographic 70 years ago, but there is no condemnation that I know of in regards to people watching R-Rated (or PG-18 or M rated) movies and shows today.  It is largely up to the individual on what they feel is spiritually uplifting and is commensurate with their own standards in relation to the LDS church's teachings and principles.

The things I do on the matter are not what the church is judged upon today, and as such it becomes more of a personal choice by each individual member on what they choose to watch or not to watch. 

[Grunt]

5 hours ago, Lost Boy said:

I know it is frowned on to watch R-rated movies, but is it a commandment not to?

And if it is, how does that work in other countries?  Other countries do not have the same rating system for movies?

Does the rating really matter?  It’s just an easy guideline.   Does it feed your soul and please the Holy Spirit?   If yes, who cares what the rating is.  If no, why are we watching it?   

There are rated G movies that normalize homosexuality.  

[Guest]

9 hours ago, Lost Boy said:

I know it is frowned on to watch R-rated movies, but is it a commandment not to?

And if it is, how does that work in other countries?  Other countries do not have the same rating system for movies?

It's not just about the rating.  It's about the content.  Commandment, not commandment, guideline.  What does it matter?  Is it good for your soul or bad for it?

Each of us has to draw a line somewhere.  And this is often based on where we are spiritually.  A serial adulterer should work on stopping his adultery rather than his cussing.  But he shouldn't be cussing either.

The rating system provides us a way of "prescreening" a movie before we see it.  Since we can't really know what's in it without actually watching it, then how can we really know? 

• We see trailers and get the subject matter and general gist of the movie.
• We hear others talk about it.
• We can look up parents' guides.
• We look at the rating.

At the time of the statements decades ago, ratings were different and parental guides were not available.  Today they are.  I'd go off the parental guides more than the rating.  But if it's rated R, it earned that rating for a reason.

4 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

There have been talks about not seeing R-rated movies in the past, but I got a better recommendation at General Conference one year (I cannot remember which one or the speaker, only that it was at General Conference, I think it was from a Seventy) where the speaker gave the suggestion that if we would not let our little children watch it, then we should not be watching the movie.

I learned this the old fashioned way -- experience.

One of my favorite movies was a beloved comedy by many.  When I had a son, I wanted to share that movie with him.  At the age of three he showed tremendous awareness.  I thought he could get some of the humor (which was mostly slapstick) and it could be a shared family experience.

I was shocked however, when I realized just how many cuss words there were in this PG movie (PG-13 was still feeling its way around).  But today it would have been a PG-13 movie.  I was also shocked to find out how many sexual innuendos and outright statements there were that I'd become numbed to.  I kept covering my son's eyes and ears.  Eventually, I had to shut the movie off because it was obviously inappropriate for a 3 year old.

I don't believe I've ever watched that movie again.

Edited May 21, 2018 by Guest

[unixknight]

The rating of a movie is meaningless.  

In the U.S., ratings are determined by the MPAA, an organization that does not represent the views of any church or form of spirituality.  Therefore, it is completely unreliable as a guide to what content is spirituality harmful or beneficial.

I ignore the rating entirely and go by content.

[NeuroTypical]

https://www.lds.org/youth/for-the-strength-of-youth/entertainment-and-media?lang=eng

You live in a day of marvelous technologies that give you easy access to a wide variety of media, including the Internet, mobile devices, video games, television, movies, music, books, and magazines. The information and entertainment provided through these media can increase your ability to learn, communicate, and become a force for good in the world. However, some information and entertainment can lead you away from righteous living. Choose wisely when using media because whatever you read, listen to, or look at has an effect on you. Select only media that uplifts you.

Satan uses media to deceive you by making what is wrong and evil look normal, humorous, or exciting. He tries to mislead you into thinking that breaking God’s commandments is acceptable and has no negative consequences for you or others. Do not attend, view, or participate in anything that is vulgar, immoral, violent, or pornographic in any way. Do not participate in anything that presents immorality or violence as acceptable. Have the courage to walk out of a movie, change your music, or turn off a computer, television, or mobile device if what you see or hear drives away the Spirit.

Pornography in all forms is especially dangerous and addictive. What may begin as an unexpected exposure or a curious exploration can become a destructive habit. Use of pornography is a serious sin and can lead to other sexual transgression. Avoid pornography at all costs. It is a poison that weakens your self-control, destroys your feelings of self-worth, and changes the way you see others. It causes you to lose the guidance of the Spirit and can damage your ability to have a normal relationship with others, especially your future spouse. It limits your ability to feel true love. If you encounter pornography, turn away from it immediately.]/quote]

[MrShorty]

6 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

where the speaker gave the suggestion that if we would not let our little children watch it, then we should not be watching the movie.

I tend not to like this idea of "infantilizing" my entertainment. Certainly there are many forms of entertainment that I would watch that I would not let my youngest children watch. At their youngest, we avoided letting them watch parts of Disney's Sleeping Beauty (when Maleficent turns into a dragon) or Snow White. I recall even being uncomfortable with the pink elephant dream sequence in Dumbo. None of these choices were made because of the morality of those movies, but based on the maturity of the child. Maybe it is my adult pride, but I bristle a little when someone suggests that, just because a child is not mature enough to watch/read/hear something that I should consider myself too immature to also consume that media.

To be fair, it could be one possible "red flag" that one uses to ask themselves questions like, "is my reluctance to let a child see/read/hear this due to a question of maturity or morality?", but beyond that, I'm not sure this really helps decide what entertainment is appropriate for the adult me.

[unixknight]

27 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I tend not to like this idea of "infantilizing" my entertainment. Certainly there are many forms of entertainment that I would watch that I would not let my youngest children watch. At their youngest, we avoided letting them watch parts of Disney's Sleeping Beauty (when Maleficent turns into a dragon) or Snow White. I recall even being uncomfortable with the pink elephant dream sequence in Dumbo. None of these choices were made because of the morality of those movies, but based on the maturity of the child. Maybe it is my adult pride, but I bristle a little when someone suggests that, just because a child is not mature enough to watch/read/hear something that I should consider myself too immature to also consume that media.

To be fair, it could be one possible "red flag" that one uses to ask themselves questions like, "is my reluctance to let a child see/read/hear this due to a question of maturity or morality?", but beyond that, I'm not sure this really helps decide what entertainment is appropriate for the adult me.

Here are some other examples of movies that have value but the kiddies aren't ready for:

Schindler's List

Saving Private Ryan

Passion of the Christ

 

[Vort]

3 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Here are some other examples of movies that have value but the kiddies aren't ready for:

Schindler's List

Saving Private Ryan

Passion of the Christ

A pornographic movie could "have value" in how it portrays the human condition or some such. Who cares? I do not see that watching an R-rated movie -- ANY R-rated movie -- brings me closer to God in a way that I could not otherwise achieve.

Just because Brand X of dog-poop cookie is fortified with seven essential vitamins doesn't mean it's a good thing for me to eat. That Brand X Dog-poop Cookies are perhaps less harmful to me than Brand Y isn't really a material consideration, any more than that Salem cigarettes are less harmful than Camels means I'm good to go smoke Salems.

[unixknight]

1 minute ago, Vort said:

A pornographic movie could "have value" in how it portrays the human condition or some such. Who cares? I do not see that watching an R-rated movie -- ANY R-rated movie -- brings me closer to God in a way that I could not otherwise achieve.

Just because Brand X of dog-poop cookie is fortified with seven essential vitamins doesn't mean it's a good thing for me to eat. That Brand X Dog-poop Cookies are perhaps less harmful to me than Brand Y isn't really a material consideration, any more than that Salem cigarettes are less harmful than Camels means I'm good to go smoke Salems.

Maybe so, but I still wouldn't outsource my thinking to a group whose values and beliefs have nothing in common with mine.  

As was said earlier, the MPAA will rate a movie 'G' even if it normalizes certain lifestyles and behaviors that run counter to the Gospel.  I'm supposed to value what they consider good or bad for me and mine?

Nope.  

[Vort]

9 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Maybe so, but I still wouldn't outsource my thinking to a group whose values and beliefs have nothing in common with mine.  

As was said earlier, the MPAA will rate a movie 'G' even if it normalizes certain lifestyles and behaviors that run counter to the Gospel.  I'm supposed to value what they consider good or bad for me and mine?

Nope.  

But this hardly means that watching movies rated R by such a body might be a good idea. It means rather the opposite -- that if such a body sees fit to rate a movie R, it is so far beyond the pale that it is not worth even considering.

When Disney's Cinderella gets an R rating and Schindler's List gets a G, then I'll believe the argument to ignore the MPAA ratings fully. Until then, stating that it's okay to watch R-rated movies because the MPAA is unreliable is nothing but a flimsy excuse for indulging.

Look, if you want to watch R-rated movies, go for it. I think it's a bad idea, but my opinion and five bucks will net you a cup of hot chocolate. Just don't pretend that it's justifiable because the MPAA ratings are unreliable. That is silly.

[unixknight]

15 minutes ago, Vort said:

But this hardly means that watching movies rated R by such a body might be a good idea. It means rather the opposite -- that if such a body sees fit to rate a movie R, it is so far beyond the pale that it is not worth even considering.

When Disney's Cinderella gets an R rating and Schindler's List gets a G, then I'll believe the argument to ignore the MPAA ratings fully. Until then, stating that it's okay to watch R-rated movies because the MPAA is unreliable is nothing but a flimsy excuse for indulging.

Look, if you want to watch R-rated movies, go for it. I think it's a bad idea, but my opinion and five bucks will net you a cup of hot chocolate. Just don't pretend that it's justifiable because the MPAA ratings are unreliable. That is silly.

Not sure what makes that silly.  Your post seems to suggest that if the MPAA calls it an 'R' that somehow it must mean the movie is just that much worse because if what they let slide with a 'G' or 'PG' rating.  It's really not so consistent as that.

A couple years back I saw a documentary on how the MPAA works.  I wish I remembered what it was called so I could recommend it to anyone who's interested.  

The MPAA keeps a tight lid on the standards, rules and even the identity of the people who assign the ratings.  I assume that's to protect those folks from being approached by filmmakers who would try to influence their decision.

What the documentary also showed is that there is a ton of inconsistency in how they handle content in films, and not just due to cultural creep.  One film gets a 'PG' while a film with similar content might get an 'R'.

So if you're open to one movie because it got a 'PG' but not another because it got an 'R', just be aware that your eyes aren't as well shielded from movie content as you think.

So no, I don't put any weight into an inconsistent and arbitrary system that has an entirely different worldview.  If you want to trust that go right ahead.  My approach is to learn about the film in some detail and make a decision based on that.  Nothing silly about it.

But yeah, my opinion is worth about the same as yours.

Edited May 21, 2018 by unixknight

[Guest]

2 hours ago, unixknight said:

Not sure what makes that silly. 

The point is that the "unreliability" of the rating system is a reason to be MORE cautious, (i.e. be careful about some PG-13 or even PG movies, and keep all R out of consideration).

You're trying to say that because it is unreliable, that you can justify being LESS cautious -- seeing an R-movie that is so far beyond that even the fallen world deems it not fit for family viewing.

Edited May 21, 2018 by Guest

[NeuroTypical]

That feeling when you disagree with Vort, while simultaneously realizing that, given a choice between a world full of people with your opinion and a world full of people with his, well, there's a clear winner.

[unixknight]

1 minute ago, Carborendum said:

The point is that the "unreliability" of the rating system is a reason to be MORE cautious, (i.e. be careful about some PG-13 or even PG movies, and keep all R out of consideration).

You're trying to say that because it is unreliable, that you can justify being LESS cautious -- seeing an R-movie that is so far beyond that even the fallen world deems it not fit for family viewing.

That's not at all what I'm saying.  I don't even see where you guys are getting that notion, unless your faith in the MPAA is so strong that it carries near scripture level reliability.

Again, I make my movie decisions based on my own efforts to learn what kind of content they contain, which is easy to do with the Internet available.  Thus, the MPAA doesn't need to factor in.

My question for you is:  What is it about the MPAA that you trust so much that you're critical of someone who doesn't use its guidance?

[Guest MormonGator]

I think it's more about the context than the actual rating. 

You can't make a realistic WWII movie and have the Allied soldiers and Axis Soldiers shake hands and play chess instead of shoot each other during the battle of the Bulge.  So to me watching an R rated movie like Saving Private Ryan is totally acceptable. In fact in my view, the younger generation owes it to the older ones who lived through it so we don't forget about that time period. 

[zil]

5 minutes ago, unixknight said:

That's not at all what I'm saying.  I don't even see where you guys are getting that notion, unless your faith in the MPAA is so strong that it carries near scripture level reliability.

Again, I make my movie decisions based on my own efforts to learn what kind of content they contain, which is easy to do with the Internet available.  Thus, the MPAA doesn't need to factor in.

My question for you is:  What is it about the MPAA that you trust so much that you're critical of someone who doesn't use its guidance?

I think @Vort is saying that if the world deems it "bad enough" to warrant an R rating, that's a sure indicator that it's not worth watching, even if it's identical to another movie which only got a PG-13 rating (which, presumably, is also not worth watching).

That was my understanding of the matter.  Personally, I don't care as I have no dog in this fight (so to speak) - I haven't been in a movie theater¹ in over a decade.

¹Except that I got a gift card for one (from my employer, I think), that you could use at the restaurants (or whatever) inside, so I took some friends and we all got expensive ice cream.

[unixknight]

12 minutes ago, zil said:

I think @Vort is saying that if the world deems it "bad enough" to warrant an R rating, that's a sure indicator that it's not worth watching, even if it's identical to another movie which only got a PG-13 rating (which, presumably, is also not worth watching.)

Yeah I think you're reading that right, but the flaw I see in @Vort and @Carborendum's argument is this:

That argument is based on the idea that the MPAA is simply more permissive, or more tolerant of troubling content but is otherwise consistent.  Therefore, if the modern, permissive MPAA says a movie has rough content, then that must mean the movie is REALLY rough.

I get that, but that isn't the case.

Here's an example to illustrate my point...  Suppose you have two movies.  One is a war flick like Saving Private Ryan, which is rated 'R' for graphic violence and strong language.  The other is a 'G' rated after school special about a high school boy whose dad is getting remarried - to a guy, which is to be celebrated in the film.

Which is more spiritually troubling?  A movie based on a true story (The real life version of Private Ryan was LDS, by the way) about men fighting for their country and to complete a mission of mercy, or a propaganda piece about  normalizing same sex marriage?

In what way does the MPAA help in this decision?

Or maybe it's just possible that doing a little research is the way to go here, rather than blindly going by the MPAA...

Edited May 21, 2018 by unixknight

[Vort]

3 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Here's an example to illustrate my point...  Suppose you have two movies.  One is a war flick like Saving Private Ryan, which is rated 'R' for graphic violence and strong language.  The other is a 'G' rated after school special about a high school boy whose dad is getting remarried - to a guy, which is to be celebrated in the film.

Which is more spiritually troubling?  A movie based on a true story (The real life version of Private Ryan was LDS, by the way) about men fighting for their country and to complete a mission of mercy, or a propaganda piece about  normalizing same sex marriage?

Clearly, the 'G'-rated film contains troubling elements, all the more troubling because they're being celebrated instead of condemned.

But that is utterly beside the point. Watching some tank operator's skull explode or seeing an overwrought private gun down an unarmed German prisoner doesn't bring me closer to Jesus. Even if I think that's somehow less objectionable than watching a movie celebrate homosexual "love", who cares? It's not a movie that teaches me any Godly principle that I can't learn in a thousand other places or a thousand other ways.

That the hypothetical 'G'-rated movie is perhaps "worse" than the hypothetical 'R'-rated flick is immaterial. The point is, if the MPAA rated a movie "Restricted", there is approximately a 0.00000% chance that I will gain eternal spiritual profit by watching it. Even if the 'G'-rated film is worse.

[Ironhold]

I'm a media critic for a local newspaper, and as part of it I've had to occasionally watch R-rated movies. 

Is the MPAA perfect? Not even close. There have been a number of incidents in which they've given films ratings that were either higher or lower than what they deserved, and some of the ratings criteria can be a bit arbitrary. 

However, for most films, the MPAA ratings will at least get you in the ballpark. As a responsible adult, it's on you to investigate from there. 

 

Now, that being said - 

There have been a few instances where there was no way to get film in at a lower rating without compromising the work, such as "Logan", "13 Hours", "No Escape", or "Deadpool". A few others, like "Jersey Boys", could have been PG-13 with a round of revision, but would still be talking about serious, if not sensitive, subject matter that isn't appropriate for younger audiences. 

But for most of the R-rated films I've seen, the R was wholly optional. With horror films in particular, I've seen writers cram sexual content and violence into things in order to increase the rating and pitch it as an R-rated thriller. These kinds of films are easy misses, and generally don't deserve another thought.  

[zil]

3 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Here's an example to illustrate my point...  Suppose you have two movies.  One is a war flick like Saving Private Ryan, which is rated 'R' for graphic violence and strong language.  The other is a 'G' rated after school special about a high school boy whose dad is getting remarried - to a guy, which is to be celebrated in the film.

Which is more spiritually troubling?  A movie based on a true story (The real life version of Private Ryan was LDS, by the way) about men fighting for their country and to complete a mission of mercy, or a propaganda piece about  normalizing same sex marriage?

In what way does the MPAA help in this decision?

Or maybe it's just possible that doing a little research is the way to go here, rather than blindly going by the MPAA...

Hmm.  It seemed clear to me that it doesn't matter how wrong or unfairly the MPAA jack something up to R, the fact that they found an excuse is a good indicator that it's worthless.

That does NOT mean that anything with a low enough rating is OK - quite the contrary.  Indeed, you make a good argument for one to be like me and just ignore the existence of movies altogether.

But regardless of how many times MPAA gives R to a PG film or G to a PG-13 film or PG-13 to an X film, @Vort's position appears to be that if it's got the R, it's worthless regardless of what a more objective analysis might reveal - no point in wasting analytic effort. I'd be willing to bet he thinks PG-13 is probably a good indicator that it's worthless too.  No idea how he feels about the lower ratings, but I'd be willing to bet he's not going to accept them at face value, but will investigate instead to determine their worthiness.

In yet more words, cuz, ya know, who can have enough words, one could say:

R = don't even bother

PG-13 = probably not

PG = investigate, but be suspicious

G = maybe, but look for hidden evils

[Guest MormonGator]

Just now, Vort said:

Clearly, the 'G'-rated film contains troubling elements, all the more troubling because they're being celebrated instead of condemned.

But that is utterly beside the point. Watching some tank operator's skull explode or seeing an overwrought private gun down an unarmed German prisoner doesn't bring me closer to Jesus. Even if I think that's somehow less objectionable than watching a movie celebrate homosexual "love", who cares? It's not a movie that teaches me any Godly principle that I can't learn in a thousand other places or a thousand other ways.

That the hypothetical 'G'-rated movie is perhaps "worse" than the hypothetical 'R'-rated flick is immaterial. The point is, if the MPAA rated a movie "Restricted", there is approximately a 0.00000% chance that I will gain eternal spiritual profit by watching it. Even if the 'G'-rated film is worse.

So do you avoid reading/watching/learning about anything in history that might not be G rated? 

[JohnsonJones]

1 minute ago, unixknight said:

Yeah I think you're reading that right, but the flaw I see in @Vort and @Carborendum's argument is this:

That argument is based on the idea that the MPAA is simply more permissive, or more tolerant of troubling content but is otherwise consistent.  Therefore, if the modern, permissive MPAA says a movie has rough content, then that must mean the movie is REALLY rough.

I get that, but that isn't the case.

Here's an example to illustrate my point...  Suppose you have two movies.  One is a war flick like Saving Private Ryan, which is rated 'R' for graphic violence and strong language.  The other is a 'G' rated after school special about a high school boy whose dad is getting remarried - to a guy, which is to be celebrated in the film.

Which is more spiritually troubling?  A movie based on a true story (The real life version of Private Ryan was LDS, by the way) about men fighting for their country and to complete a mission of mercy, or a propaganda piece about  normalizing same sex marriage?

In what way does the MPAA help in this decision?

Neither.  Saving Private Ryan from what I've heard glorifies violence to a degree.  Even if it is about men saving another and fighting for their freedom, there is no need to show the graphic violence of war to portray such a message.  If the message is about the love of their fellow man or fellow soldier, why then try to take the focus off of it by showing the graphic horrendous effects of warfare to do so?  Graphic violence of that nature is not uplifting to me, and so there is not a good reason to go watch such a thing, even if there is another underlying message that may be good.

In regards to the other show, that too is something to keep your child from watching.  It obviously appears to have a message that I would not agree with.

That said, these would be PERSONAL judgments that I make for myself and my family which is in my house.  If you find such things uplifting or worthy of your time, I have no place to say what effect they have on you or others.  That is your own personal judgment to make.  The church has left it up to each of us individually to make this judgment, possibly because we are all different.

I know a Mission President that has watched all the movies you listed above and he's a really good guy.  A faithful member and probably a better individual than I am.  He decided that these movies had uplifting things for him.  His decision is obviously different than mine, but we are also different people.

I personally try to avoid movies that have messages that are not uplifting to me or my family in my judgment or that have things that I do not find all that uplifting.  This is a choice each of us individually need to make and not something (unless it is what the world considers pornography today) that the church gets overly involved in except to instruct us to watch uplifting shows and movies.

[Vort]

1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

So do you avoid reading/watching/learning about anything in history that might not be G rated? 

Obviously not. But watching Steven Spielberg's interpretation of a fictional novel based on general historical events is hardly "learning history". At least, not in any ideal form.

Pornographic movies very carefully and accurately document the types of things shown in pornographic movies. I don't think that makes them worthwhile.

[unixknight]

4 minutes ago, Vort said:

Clearly, the 'G'-rated film contains troubling elements, all the more troubling because they're being celebrated instead of condemned.

But that is utterly beside the point. Watching some tank operator's skull explode or seeing an overwrought private gun down an unarmed German prisoner doesn't bring me closer to Jesus. Even if I think that's somehow less objectionable than watching a movie celebrate homosexual "love", who cares? It's not a movie that teaches me any Godly principle that I can't learn in a thousand other places or a thousand other ways.

That the hypothetical 'G'-rated movie is perhaps "worse" than the hypothetical 'R'-rated flick is immaterial. The point is, if the MPAA rated a movie "Restricted", there is approximately a 0.00000% chance that I will gain eternal spiritual profit by watching it. Even if the 'G'-rated film is worse.

What about the Passion of the Christ?  Many people have expressed a spiritual gain from it.