Watchmen: A Tale of Two Reviews by Ted Slater on 03/10/2009 at 1:38 PM

It looked like a cool movie, the kind of dark action flick to which I find myself drawn. So, as a matter of course, I looked up the review on Plugged In Online.

The plot seems intriguing, the characters seem multi-dimensional, the film itself (director, actors, cinematography, etc.) is no doubt of high artistic quality.

But it's clear that (and I add the following qualifier as a nod to the moral ambiguity of our time) -- for me -- the bad outweighs the good. The injurious effects likely are greater than the movie's virtue-enlarging effects. And so I'll pass.

Most obviously, I don't see how the rampant over-the-top sexual content could possibly be any good for me:

• "... the two engage in a graphic sex scene, complete with nudity (her breasts and both of their backsides), much movement and a climax."
• "Another physical tryst, where the two strip and writhe around on a couch, ends when Nite Owl finds himself to be impotent without first doing superhero-type work."
• "Nite Owl also has a dream in which he and Silk Spectre, both nude, meet in the middle of a barren landscape and "strip" their nudity, revealing superhero outfits underneath."
• "Dr. Manhattan, pre-transformation, has sex with his girlfriend; she later leaves him after he develops an interest—and passionately kisses—Silk Spectre (who's 16 at the time)."
• "Dr. Manhattan spends most of the film in the big, blue buff, and audiences see him every which way: back, side and front. He sends nude duplicates of himself to pleasure girlfriend Silk Spectre—resulting in a bizarre foursome."
• "Silk Spectre's mom, Sally ..., is sexually assaulted by The Comedian. We're asked to watch as he attacks her."
• "Silk Spectre's outfits are slinky and provocative. Rorschach's mother was apparently a prostitute. Another prostitute flashes her breasts at a passing superhero. Audiences catch glimpses of pornographic magazines and movies. A naked man is seen frolicking during a party."

Like I said, I'm not sure being exposed to such God-dishonoring sights and sounds would make me a better man, no matter how deeply the themes of this film are explored.

The violence, likewise, seems beyond redemption:

When people get shot, we see skin separate like a burst balloon. When people have their arms broken, we see the bones stab through the flesh. Arms are cut off with buzz saws. Dogs fight over the leg bone of a murdered little girl—foot and shoe still attached. Dr. Manhattan has his body stripped into oblivion, layer by layer ... twice. The Comedian shoots and kills a pregnant woman (he fathered the child) after the woman slices his face with a broken bottle. Rorschach, as a child, rips off someone's ear with his teeth.... Clearly, Watchmen shares far more with Saw than Spider-Man.

The review's conclusion helped me make up my mind about whether or not to spend 10 bucks to watch this movie:

Watchmen, the movie, retains that cruel sense of despair. At times, its adherence to the source material feels almost slavish. Yet it's a bit pastiche, too, layering in extra—gratuitous—sex, blood and gore just for raw, big screen shock value.

As a book, Watchmen is messy. As a movie, Watchmen is a mess. In fact, I'll go so far as to call it dispirited, depressing schlock—both as a work of art and as a mode of message. Fanboys may be enthralled, but I'd imagine the uninitiated will walk away appalled, confused and even strangely bored. At the advance screening I attended, where folks generally stay glued to their seats, I saw a number of people leave the theater. Some never came back. This isn't a movie as much as an assault.

But this is a tale of two reviews, right?

Out of curiosity, I checked out the review over at Christianity Today Movies, where they gave it 3.5 out of 4 stars (for some reason they are sure to explain away).

To be fair, the reviewer says in the first paragraph that this is not a "family-friendly superhero movie." Perhaps in a nod to my commentary on another movie review of theirs, they point out that this movie indeed "relishes in its R rating."

Nevertheless, for Christianity Today, the film is redeemed by its story and the well-executed telling of that story. Yes, they say, Watchmen is "a comprehensive film still relevant to today's general audiences." The reviewer uses words such as "brilliant," "smart," "beautiful," "ambitious," "visionary," "imaginative" and "impressive visuals" to describe this film. His conclusion: "It's a surprisingly good adaptation of unique sci-fi material that is challenging and haunting."

CT's review says that this movie is "certainly watchable"; Plugged In Online's review concludes that this movie is really watchable by "no one."

These two film reviews represent two different approaches by Christian artists. One seems to place an emphasis on how a movie might affect us, how it might provoke us toward godliness in every lofty sense of that word. The other seems to place an emphasis on the artistic quality of a movie, how the story and characters might help us explore meaningful themes. The first type of review primarily helps us discern whether or not to pay money to take in a couple of hours of entertainment; the second primarily aims to help us work through issues brought up by a movie we've already chosen to see.

I think there's value to both kinds of reviews. As someone who's studied communication in grad school, as someone who's been involved in the arts for decades, I can appreciate the study of difficult and dirty material. Wrestling in the mud can help us better appreciate God and His creation.

But in the end, I am more concerned about the cost required for this kind of knowledge. Am I willing to endure scenes of actors portraying explicit sex? Am I willing to allow a camera operator to command my eyes to immerse myself in every gruesome detail of death and gore? Am I willing to go into the dreary depths of hell, emerging polluted and stained and smelling putrid, with a possibility of better appreciating heaven?

Nah.

Watchmen: A Tale of Two Reviews by Ted Slater on 03/10/2009 at 1:38 PM

It looked like a cool movie, the kind of dark action flick to which I find myself drawn. So, as a matter of course, I looked up the review on Plugged In Online.

The plot seems intriguing, the characters seem multi-dimensional, the film itself (director, actors, cinematography, etc.) is no doubt of high artistic quality.

But it's clear that (and I add the following qualifier as a nod to the moral ambiguity of our time) -- for me -- the bad outweighs the good. The injurious effects likely are greater than the movie's virtue-enlarging effects. And so I'll pass.

Most obviously, I don't see how the rampant over-the-top sexual content could possibly be any good for me:

• "... the two engage in a graphic sex scene, complete with nudity (her breasts and both of their backsides), much movement and a climax."
• "Another physical tryst, where the two strip and writhe around on a couch, ends when Nite Owl finds himself to be impotent without first doing superhero-type work."
• "Nite Owl also has a dream in which he and Silk Spectre, both nude, meet in the middle of a barren landscape and "strip" their nudity, revealing superhero outfits underneath."
• "Dr. Manhattan, pre-transformation, has sex with his girlfriend; she later leaves him after he develops an interest—and passionately kisses—Silk Spectre (who's 16 at the time)."
• "Dr. Manhattan spends most of the film in the big, blue buff, and audiences see him every which way: back, side and front. He sends nude duplicates of himself to pleasure girlfriend Silk Spectre—resulting in a bizarre foursome."
• "Silk Spectre's mom, Sally ..., is sexually assaulted by The Comedian. We're asked to watch as he attacks her."
• "Silk Spectre's outfits are slinky and provocative. Rorschach's mother was apparently a prostitute. Another prostitute flashes her breasts at a passing superhero. Audiences catch glimpses of pornographic magazines and movies. A naked man is seen frolicking during a party."

Like I said, I'm not sure being exposed to such God-dishonoring sights and sounds would make me a better man, no matter how deeply the themes of this film are explored.

The violence, likewise, seems beyond redemption:

When people get shot, we see skin separate like a burst balloon. When people have their arms broken, we see the bones stab through the flesh. Arms are cut off with buzz saws. Dogs fight over the leg bone of a murdered little girl—foot and shoe still attached. Dr. Manhattan has his body stripped into oblivion, layer by layer ... twice. The Comedian shoots and kills a pregnant woman (he fathered the child) after the woman slices his face with a broken bottle. Rorschach, as a child, rips off someone's ear with his teeth.... Clearly, Watchmen shares far more with Saw than Spider-Man.

The review's conclusion helped me make up my mind about whether or not to spend 10 bucks to watch this movie:

Watchmen, the movie, retains that cruel sense of despair. At times, its adherence to the source material feels almost slavish. Yet it's a bit pastiche, too, layering in extra—gratuitous—sex, blood and gore just for raw, big screen shock value.

As a book, Watchmen is messy. As a movie, Watchmen is a mess. In fact, I'll go so far as to call it dispirited, depressing schlock—both as a work of art and as a mode of message. Fanboys may be enthralled, but I'd imagine the uninitiated will walk away appalled, confused and even strangely bored. At the advance screening I attended, where folks generally stay glued to their seats, I saw a number of people leave the theater. Some never came back. This isn't a movie as much as an assault.

But this is a tale of two reviews, right?

Out of curiosity, I checked out the review over at Christianity Today Movies, where they gave it 3.5 out of 4 stars (for some reason they are sure to explain away).

To be fair, the reviewer says in the first paragraph that this is not a "family-friendly superhero movie." Perhaps in a nod to my commentary on another movie review of theirs, they point out that this movie indeed "relishes in its R rating."

Nevertheless, for Christianity Today, the film is redeemed by its story and the well-executed telling of that story. Yes, they say, Watchmen is "a comprehensive film still relevant to today's general audiences." The reviewer uses words such as "brilliant," "smart," "beautiful," "ambitious," "visionary," "imaginative" and "impressive visuals" to describe this film. His conclusion: "It's a surprisingly good adaptation of unique sci-fi material that is challenging and haunting."

CT's review says that this movie is "certainly watchable"; Plugged In Online's review concludes that this movie is really watchable by "no one."

These two film reviews represent two different approaches by Christian artists. One seems to place an emphasis on how a movie might affect us, how it might provoke us toward godliness in every lofty sense of that word. The other seems to place an emphasis on the artistic quality of a movie, how the story and characters might help us explore meaningful themes. The first type of review primarily helps us discern whether or not to pay money to take in a couple of hours of entertainment; the second primarily aims to help us work through issues brought up by a movie we've already chosen to see.

I think there's value to both kinds of reviews. As someone who's studied communication in grad school, as someone who's been involved in the arts for decades, I can appreciate the study of difficult and dirty material. Wrestling in the mud can help us better appreciate God and His creation.

But in the end, I am more concerned about the cost required for this kind of knowledge. Am I willing to endure scenes of actors portraying explicit sex? Am I willing to allow a camera operator to command my eyes to immerse myself in every gruesome detail of death and gore? Am I willing to go into the dreary depths of hell, emerging polluted and stained and smelling putrid, with a possibility of better appreciating heaven?

Nah.

Comments

[1. Matthew said the following at 1:48 PM on Mar 10:]

1

Read the book instead. The violence and sex are far less explicit (though certainly present, and I can't say the same for all of Mr. Moore's work), and it deals with the themes far better. I'm with you: I loved the book, but the cost of watching the Watchmen movie is just too high for me.

[2. Dr. Ransom said the following at 1:55 PM on Mar 10:]

2

Thanks for a great even-handed post about the issue, Ted. I cannot understand what seems to be a desensitization to sexually immoral visuals in movies so as to reach all those thought-provoking themes. Is such a desensitization incidental, or intentional? Either way, how is God glorified through that?

Ah yes, but now, let the comparisons to The Dark Knight begin. Yet there was no personally tempting material in that "dark" film than what seems to have been included in Watchmen.

And I do not mean that everyone ought to be able to put up with acted-out violence. However, Scripture doesn't say to avoid representations of violence (though arguments can be made that it's not necessary), yet it is very clear about avoiding sexual immorality.

[3. Sarah P. said the following at 2:20 PM on Mar 10:]

3

Ted, this is a really good post. After reading it, I thought, meh. Too bad. I'll probably skip the movie, then, even though I've heard people having very thought-provoking discussions about it already.

Then I went on imdb.com to see how regular people are rating the movie. So far, 25,000+ people give it an 8.3 out of 10. This tells me that there's something there that's "getting" people. And it's not just sex. Sex and the City has a 5.4 out of 10, for example. Dark Knight has a 9.0 out of 10.

I still don't know if I'll go see it. I'll wait until I have a good reason. But I bet there is something there.

[4. Jeremy said the following at 2:45 PM on Mar 10:]

4

"Is such a desensitization incidental, or intentional? Either way, how is God glorified through that?"

Idea, which I am neither supporting nor rejecting, just offering it as a discussion:

We live in a sexualized culture. One cannot realistically expect to avoid all sexual images in our modern era. Therefore, if one cannot seem to refrain from lusting when confronted with a sexual image, would it be honoring to God to pursue desensitization so as to more easily avoid sin?

Side note, but Watchmen was very disappointing; it is not nearly as thought-provoking or deep as some are claiming. It is occasionally visually impressive, but otherwise rather shallow and downright cheesy. And yes, extremely violent.

[5. Rachael said the following at 2:49 PM on Mar 10:]

5

Wow, that's a lot of graphic detail. It is interesting to me how the conscience can seemingly differ among Christians, not only with regard to the media, but life decisions and language use as well.

[6. Historyloveralways said the following at 3:12 PM on Mar 10:]

6

Ted,

Thanks for the warning about Watchmen. I particularly liked when you said: Most obviously, I don't see how the rampant over-the-top sexual content could possibly be any good for me. I feel exactly the same way.

I think a film is redeemed when it redeems us. This film doesn't seem to be redeeming.

[7. DannieA said the following at 3:22 PM on Mar 10:]

7

You know, my friends and I were out for a girls night out and we had not seen plugged-in reviews so we ended up going to see it because although we are girls, we are so comic book movie oriented and I have to say....

SKIP IT! I'm all about not being extreme one way or the other, but I have to say that this movie does relish the R rating and as we were discussing, we didn't know if we were watching a movie or a porno.

This movie made 'the punisher' look like a rated G comic book movie.

oh and did I mention that the violence was ewwww gross? disgusting, we really shoulda gone to see confessions of a shop-a-holic, but the start time was too late for all of us and we decided on this one...yeah not our best move. We're no longer watching a movie unless we've read up on the reviews.

[8. Cassandra said the following at 3:26 PM on Mar 10:]

8

"Nevertheless, for Christianity Today, the film is redeemed by its story and the well-executed telling of that story."

Talk about cognitive dissonance.

I am so disenchanted with CT. I'm very glad you guys are still holding to a Biblical worldview, and despite the backlash, appear to lovingly be a thorn in their side.

[9. Melissa said the following at 3:28 PM on Mar 10:]

9

I started using Plugged In! a few years to check out the potentially questionable content of movies before going to see them. As a born again Christian from a worldly background, I had been brought up desensitized to all sorts of stuff in movies and music that is displeasing to the Lord, such as foul language (including taking the Lord's name in vain) and explicit sexual images. But God used the reviews at Plugged In! along with His Word and other factors to make me more aware of what kind of junk I had been taking in and how it could be negatively affecting me spiritually. I've since become a lot more discerning about what movies I choose to see based on their content, cut a lot of the junk that I had been taking in our, and I feel like I have grown so much spiritually as a result.

[10. Adam said the following at 3:32 PM on Mar 10:]

10

First of all, thanks Ted for trying to be pretty even-handed with the post.

I think we do need to consider just how much "wrestling in the mud" we allow ourselves to do.

However, sometimes I question the value of all the mud being distilled and brought to the surface. For instance, I could tell you about about some media that has both male and female nudity at the very start. Murder, rape scenes, incest scenes, I could go on and on. The title is Genesis. Don't even get me started about the graphic sexuality of Song of Solomon.

If I use the existence of objectionable content as the primary decision-maker it can cause some problems. Granted, there are some movies that I will avoid for this very reason - which is why I appreciate Plugged In.

I also appreciate CT's review in that it attempts to keep the content within the focus of the entire movie. It also usually doesn't attempt to decide for everyone whether they should see the movie or not. Time and time again, I see Plugged In as trying to make that decision for you.

If I were to have one wish for Plugged In, it would be that they would go the same lengths for positive content as they do for negative. They spent 6 lines talking about all the positive aspects of the movie. They had no problem using 30 on just sexuality though. Having seen the movie myself over the weekend; I think PI could have written a little more positive if the same effort went into it as they put into graphically detailing each hint of sexuality.

[11. Christina (in green) said the following at 3:46 PM on Mar 10:]

11

Rome didn't fall in a day...

I caught myself singing be careful little ears in the shower the other day.

Ted,
There are days when I agree with you on this subject, and others when I don't.

I definitely agree that we should be discerning and most of the time, I find movies to use certain stuff that is completely irrelevant and the story would be just as good without it - and perhaps result in a better movie.

But there are other times when the story can't be taken out of its context without destroying the story. In those cases, I'm a little more lenient on those things.

I'm not gonna go and watch Harold and Kumar go to Whitecastle simply to get a good laugh when its rife with sexually explicit material and poor language. (Even when its not filled with it, it would be a horrible watch, though).

However, there are times when your reviews put on the altar the actual story simply to get the "clean" approach to movie making. I, for one, can't imagine how YOU of all people could stand Wall-E, for example.

YES, its CLEAN. No language, no sex, Wall-E is adorable in his devotion to Eva. But the ENTIRE movie is about how humans destroyed earth through pollution, causing global warming and making the planet "unliveable".

It is the most political Disney movie (and pixar movie) that I have ever seen.

My father isn't nearly so passionate as you are in the global warming mess and yet refused to see the movie!

Ok...so the first option, I would never have my kids see and the second generates good conversation, but do you see what I'm getting at?

The story content is just as important as the package it comes in from a CHRISTIAN point of view. And sometimes I see the two being divorced way to frequently - by both Plugged In and CT.

Examples in other media worlds would be Beverly Lewis and Lori Wick novels that are clean beyond measure but the stories evoke feelings of romance that, when indulged in too frequently, can cause an over-romanticized view of the world.

And then there's Ted Dekker, whose books are filled with violence, but the stories all point to really deep theological issues.

I'd suggest you just stop going to the movies =/

[12. Craig M said the following at 3:48 PM on Mar 10:]

12

I saw it. The violence is hard-core and constant, the sex much less so. Rape isn't smiled upon by the movie; the offender is portrayed as a hedonist, amoral anti-hero who slowly destroys his soul. The fundamental problem with "Watchmen" is that its philosophical perspective is just wrong. Not to get too detailed, but the film is set in an alternate 1985, and the impending peril of global thermonuclear war propelled by the equally vile U.S. and Soviet governments is the backdrop of the entire plot. Of course, this entire leftist perspective considered so "enlightened" by university types in the actual 1980's has since been disproven by actual events. Reagan won the Cold War without firing a shot, no one was itching to push the nuclear button, and the collapse of the Soviet Union and subsequent revelations showed the stark difference between the free West and the evil empire. "Watchmen" completely ignores this. It's dystopian and misanthropic without just cause, and sees nothing but hypocrisy and stench wherever people tread. It's that outlook, and not the violence and sex quotient, that ultimately make the film a spectacular but confused failure.

[13. Some Dude said the following at 3:53 PM on Mar 10:]

13

I saw this movie, and I was disappointed.

I agree with the review above. At times, the movie was terribly boring. I just kept waiting for something interesting to happen. Other times, the gore seemed to be only for the shock value. I don't mind violence in movies, but I think that it should be used to make a point.

Another thing that I did not like about this movie was the absence of a good guy to root for. Every single character was morally depraved.

Also, I was not comfortable with the ending. I will be as ambiguous as I can be to avoid spoiling the ending. The superhero characters seem to suggest that after all the bad things they did, the end justifies the means. Not a good message.

[14. Ashley Harris said the following at 3:54 PM on Mar 10:]

14

Christina (in green),

I haven't thought about Lori Wick novels in years! At one time, I had read everything she had ever written. They did stir up an "over-romanticized view of the world" in me. Thanks for bringing that up.

[15. Cassandra said the following at 3:55 PM on Mar 10:]

15

The point is, these are Christian reviews. If I want to read a secular review of a film, I'll go to Rotten Tomatoes. It's just so jarring to see functional pornography described with the superlatives Ted delineates above with the word "Christianity" in the logo above it.

[16. Dorene said the following at 4:02 PM on Mar 10:]

16

I made the unfortunate error of watching this movie since I am a huge fan of Superhero movies and comics. I totally agree with what Ted says about this movie... as Christians it not worth watching something this degrading...I left the theater feeling spectacularly disappointed!! and promising myself to check the Pluggedin reviews before I decide to watch another movie... thanks for doing this reviewers at Pluggedin... huge appreciation for this from countless Boundless fans! hmmm... did I just rhyme :)

[17. Dr. Ransom said the following at 4:04 PM on Mar 10:]

17

For instance, I could tell you about about some media that has both male and female nudity at the very start. Murder, rape scenes, incest scenes, I could go on and on. The title is Genesis. Don't even get me started about the graphic sexuality of Song of Solomon.

Adam (no. 10), are you seriously trying to compare graphic visual, intentionally-lust-inducing representations (often approving) of sexual sins with the sexual sins only described in the Bible -- or even worse, the lavish, God-glorifying celebration of emotional and physical intimacy in Song of Songs?

Such a comparison is like rotten apples to oranges, sir. :-)

Neither does a Romans 14 brothers-with-weaker-conscience argument apply here. People's degrees of temptation and resistance may vary, of course, but the Biblical injunctions to avoid personal sexual temptation are not vague and not merely optional.

[18. Craig M said the following at 4:07 PM on Mar 10:]

18

Question--does the exposure of a woman's breasts in a movie, by itself, make it a pornographic film? Opinions?

[19. Ted Slater said the following at 4:14 PM on Mar 10:]

19

Craig M (#18) -- my dad is a physician. As part of his training, he has viewed movies that show a woman's breasts. No, he was not watching pornography.

What is your point in asking that question? Are you a physician? Is looking at a woman's breasts part of the Lord's calling on your life, His vocation for you? Or are you simply looking for an excuse to look at women's breasts?

[20. IMO said the following at 4:23 PM on Mar 10:]

20

#19 lol ...yea I've noticed Craig likes to mention a woman's breasts a lot.

[21. Craig M said the following at 4:31 PM on Mar 10:]

21

Ted--ha, very amusing. No, the question wasn't personal, but it was sweet of you to ask. Just wondering what people think. My inclination is that nudity in art (not medical films) by itself is not necessarily pornographic; intent and context are key. I didn't think the three-second revelation of a woman's breasts in "Braveheart" was pornographic in nature, for instance. And the brief exposure of Schwarzeneggar's backside in "the Terminator" doesn't strike me as pornographic; the guy is playing a machine, and there's no sexual context at all. I thought "Watchmen" walked up to the line; certainly it's in a different league than my two examples. But to be honest, when I hear something described as "pornographic" I tend to equate that with "obscene" material; that is, explicit sex divorced from all artistic merit. Maybe I'm being too legalistic; I am a lawyer after all.

[22. Christina (in green) said the following at 4:35 PM on Mar 10:]

22

Ashley,

I read them all, too =p

My mom was always crazy with me and my sister when it came to discernment.

I can't tell you how often my mom grounded me from reading because of those books and the over-romanticized view I'd get.

I still tell people I was grounded from reading books simply because it really sounds so outrageous =p But I really do understand why I was =p (it would be accompanied with being restricted from listening to my parents' Christian love songs CD's, too...)

[23. Dani said the following at 4:50 PM on Mar 10:]

23

Good rebuttal, Dr. Ransom (#17). Exactly what I was thinking!

Yes, Genesis is graphic, but all of the violence and sex is very clearly condemned. Even if Watchmen's rapist is portrayed negatively (Craig M., #12), I imagine that the film glorifies its other sex scenes.

(By the way, Dr. Ransom, is your name a reference to the Space Trilogy?)

[24. Cassandra said the following at 5:05 PM on Mar 10:]

24

"Is looking at a woman's breasts part of the Lord's calling on your life, His vocation for you?"

As long as they belong to his wife, yes! Prov 5:19

;)

[25. BDB said the following at 5:09 PM on Mar 10:]

25

>>This movie made 'the punisher' look like a rated G comic book movie. <<

Oh, dear. I thought that movie was a little too unenlightened. I guess I'll wait until The Watchmen comes out edited on TNT.

[26. brx said the following at 5:12 PM on Mar 10:]

26

Ted S (#19),

I don't know Craig's motivations, but for me, his question begs consideration of just how could an effective public policy be written against pornography? It seems to me that any such policy would be fraught with complications.

The policy question is particularly relevant to me because I'm currently participating in a several week long, multi-church, multi-denominational discussion of religion and politics in an interactive panel format.

Thoughts?

Grace, peace & adventure!

[27. Sara said the following at 5:15 PM on Mar 10:]

27

Craig M, #18,

It's just another subjective-objective thing.

Are peanuts poisonous? You can't answer the question, because they're neither, in and of themselves. You need a subject to figure that out. Let's use allergy-prone Suzy as a subject. Are peanuts poisonous to Suzy? Yes.

Setting aside the obvious objective cases where something's explicitly made to be porn, it the same with you and porn: do you get off on it? Then for you, it's porn.

If the bare-breast movie was made to be porn, but it doesn't turn you on, then for you, it's porn objectively and not-porn subjectively.

But really, you already know all of that intuitively! If you're a Christian looking to 'flee temptation', having long discussions about what is and isn't porn is just an excuse to talk about it.

[28. Historyloveralways said the following at 5:30 PM on Mar 10:]

28

Craig,

In our culture the exposure of a woman's breasts has a sexual overtures. In other cultures, where people don't wear much clothes breasts don't have that significance. So whether or not the exposure of a woman's breasts in public (such as a film) is pornographic or not depends on whether or not the exposure of the breasts was meant for sexual purposes. There are women going around in native cultures with their breasts exposed and it doesn't have a sexual significance. Sometimes pictures are taken of these same women for articles and the exposure of their breasts still doesn't have a sexual significance. But in the developed world in films it does have a sexual significance, and thus is pornographic.

Since our culture sexualizes women's breasts we always see them in a sexual manner. But this is not so in all cultures. In some cultures breasts have no sexual overtures.

[29. Tim said the following at 6:14 PM on Mar 10:]

29

I would have to agree with you Ted. Zack Snyder has an impressive visual style, and from the looks of the trailers, "Watchmen" is no exception.

I had been following this project for a while and had always been intrigued by the premise. However, as it came closer and closer to release, I began to devle further into the source material. From what I learned, I knew there was a good chance that the film would have unnecessary gratuitous nudity. What I did not expect, which was confirmed by reviews, was the level of gratuitous violence. A film like "The Dark Knight" showed us that violent scenes can be just as effective when they are not actually shown (obviously, not all of the film's violence was hidden).

To me, it is a shame that the director chose to revel in gratuitous sex and violence. If it had not been for Snyder's creative choice, I would have more than likely seen the film due to its interesting and thought provoking story (from what I have read). I think "Watchmen" will be one of those cases where its content diminshes its box office returns.

I guess I could always read the graphic novel, but something tells me there would be no use in that.

[30. Jeremy said the following at 6:45 PM on Mar 10:]

30

"What is your point in asking that question? Are you a physician? Is looking at a woman's breasts part of the Lord's calling on your life, His vocation for you? Or are you simply looking for an excuse to look at women's breasts?"

This seems like an incendiary and somewhat childish accusation. I cannot answer for Craig, but I will answer for myself -- I believe that God approves of my involvement with and appreciation of art, and of my pursuit of aesthetic beauty and insights into new aspects of life. I do not think He disaproves of that sometimes involving a non-lustful viewing of nudity or a non-approving viewing of sinful behavior. I believe that God wanst to challenge and inspire me, and that He often uses film as a medium to do so.

It would seem that some people on here do not appreciate film as an artistic medium. That is fine. But the insults directed towards those of us that do, and the implication that the only reason we might see an R-rated movie is to try to glimpse some boobs is more than a little insulting.

[31. Kelly said the following at 6:54 PM on Mar 10:]

31

I know I won't be seeing it because of the violent content it contains. Every single review has mentioned this.

I watch movies for entertainment and to me, there is NOTHING entertaining about seeing people hurt. Ever.

[32. Jorden said the following at 7:33 PM on Mar 10:]

32

I agree with you Ted. Although I still think CT gave it way too high a score for the content of the movie. I read the pluggedin reviews and I don't see how -anyone- could see the movie and not be led astray sexually at least some. And that's not counting the rest of it.

Christina(#11) while I think you are correct and saying that it is the most political movie from Disney. I, personally, really enjoyed it because Wall-E was so endearing and the plot of it seemed to have a good warning in that we need to let technology have a rest sometimes and live our lives as humans. Plus the movie was basically completely clean, which only about 2 movies per year actually accomplish.

And just for clarification, I'm about level with Ted on his global warming viewpoints. I don't agree that this planet will be like Wall-E described at all, but that is hardly temptation for me. Not like the sexuality in Watchmen would be.

[33. DannieA said the following at 7:40 PM on Mar 10:]

33

#18...ummm put it together with the one explicit sex scene and other factors such as looking at Dr. Manhattan's package in all it's "blue" glory....and there you go.

[34. Apryl said the following at 8:13 PM on Mar 10:]

34

Does anyone walk out on movies anymore? It seems like those who didn't like it still stayed to watch it until the end. Is getting your monies worth really worth it? I'm very thankful for the PluggedIn reviews so that I can decide beforehand whether the show is worth the money or not.

[35. Texas Craig said the following at 8:18 PM on Mar 10:]

35

Jeremy (#4):

I do not think that desensitization ever causes one to become stronger in battling sexual immorality. Sexuality is like a drug. It has its proper and beneficial role. But, its abuse often leads to deeper and deeper levels of abuse, and greater exposure to it often leads to a greater desire for it and dependence on it. There is a reason that pornography creates addictions in many men. Continued exposure to it does not break the addiction - rather, it feeds it. Pornography addiction needs to be cut out completely to overcome it, and sexual immorality is not battled by exposure to more sexual content.

I understand the desire to obtain a "redeeming message" from something worldly, but I do not see how one can reconcile the idea of watching clearly worldly films, with offensive content, when we have instructions like that contained in Philippians 4:8:

"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."

There are plenty of other verses that would apply as well (flee from sexual immorality; take captive every thought; be transformed by the renewing of your mind, etc.)

[36. Rachael said the following at 10:36 PM on Mar 10:]

36

Whether or not something is or is not technical porn is not the ultimate question. Would I want my husband looking at another woman's private parts during a movie (not including cultures where exposed areas might the norm)? Absolutely not!!

[37. Kathryn said the following at 11:08 PM on Mar 10:]

37

I saw the movie last night with my Boyfriend. We read the Plugged In Online review, as well as the imdb breakdown of the sex/violence in the film. We decided in the end that we would see it. We're both big fans of the comic book and found that though this was different, we still enjoyed it.

As for the sex and violence, I'd felt that I was prepared for the worst parts of it and when they were on screen, I turned away my eyes. For the most part, the violence wasn't any worse than seen in the graphic novel (with a couple of exceptions that Josh assures me I didn't want to see) and neither of us saw the sex scene, so I cannot comment on that.

I feel that the issues it brought up and the commentary it made on the state of humanity were interesting and we saw it in order to have informed conversation about those issues with our non-Christian friends (most of whom would have seen the movie and not read the graphic novel).

I'm very glad we went into the film informed about what we would face. I'm glad that given that preparation, I was able to turn away and not see things I would rather not. I'm also glad I went because most of what I did see was interesting, engaging and thought provoking.

[38. beatrice81 said the following at 11:09 PM on Mar 10:]

38

As usual, Sara has the most incisive remarks on the blog. "If you're a Christian looking to 'flee temptation', having long discussions about what is and isn't porn is just an excuse to talk about it."

Same goes for bemoaning 'over-the-top sexual content', while repeating and lingering over long lists detailing every real or percieved sex scene.

[39. Craig M. said the following at 12:40 AM on Mar 11:]

39

Fair enough. Let's NOT talk about breasts. I can't recall ever writing on the subject before, but if IMO thinks it's my "thing," I sure don't want to drag him down with me. Didn't mean to make everyone jumpy. Notice that I wasn't defending "Watchmen"; my opinion is that the flim lacks sufficient artistic merit to justify its excesses. If it were as thoughtful and meaningful as it THINKS it is, that would be another story. As a big film guy, though, I strongly dislike the "anything too graphic for a 12-year-old is too graphic for EVERYONE" mode of argument. Some of the very best films I've ever seen have had material I wouldn't allow a kid to watch.

I disagree a bit with Sara. I don't think "do you get off on it" is always the only question. It is certainly A question. But I think the message and overall effect of a film is often more important. For example. I see lots (and lots) of violent films. War movies, crime movies, historical epics, science fiction. But I refuse to enter the theatre for "slasher" or "torture porn" movies, which focus almost longingly on the excruciating suffering of a (usually young and female) doomed victim for, essentially, thrills. What's the difference? In most good war films, the violence serves both the story and the artistic message of the film. Either the film is drawing attention to the great sacrifices made to defend freedom, or alternatively (and more often these days, unfortunately) the pointlessness and evil of war. The violence is not delivered to the audience in a spirit of voyeurism, and it doesn't invite the viewer to indulge in sadism. "Torture porn" movies are showing the viewer pain and death for fun. So as a result, the effect on the viewer is very different. The viewer of one film should come away with an appreciation for freedom, for sacrifice, and (if the characters are convincingly portrayed) for the preciousness and fragility of life. The viewer of the other film comes away dulled to sensation, encouraged to see life as disposable and cheap, and cruelty as normative and (even worse) attractive. This sort of distinction, by the way, is the only thing separating the intense violence of "Saw" from the equally intense violence of "The Passion of the Christ." The actual level of violence portrayed is pretty much identical (Roger Ebert called "Passion" the most violent movie he'd ever seen but gave it four stars); the purpose makes all the difference.

I think this applies to a lot of different subjects in film. If sex is portrayed, for instance, I don't think that's the end of the inquiry. How is it portrayed? Is it degrading and violent? Is that degrading violence given an attractive sheen? If that's so, it's bad news even if there's no explicit nudity.

[40. Chris said the following at 6:11 AM on Mar 11:]

40

Maybe I'm wrong, but this discussion seems to be leaning more towards sexual content/issues than violence.

I've always found this interesting in our culture. We go ape over a "wardrobe malfunction" during the Super Bowl, yet violence gets more of a free pass. People want to ban dirty movies but don't seem to care about Dirty Harry.

Just a thought....

[41. Emma said the following at 6:29 AM on Mar 11:]

41

I went and read CT's review and I actually liked it a lot more than Plugged In'. They covered a lot of material and gave a lot of information about the movie to give a well informed review, rather than just listing all the swear words and sex scenes.

While I appreciate Plugged In's honesty towards TV and Movie content - they sure call it like it is rather than glossing over details, I certainly agree with Adam (#10).
Plugged In seems to spend a lot of time criticizing movies and giving us very little reason to see them.

It brings up a dilemma for me: personally I don't want to be stuck watching Wall E and Veggie Tale movies for the rest of my life, but if the movies out there are really that bad then I have Plugged In to thank for bringing that to my attention. It just seems that Plugged In damns every movie with very faint praise.

[42. Dan Gill said the following at 7:00 AM on Mar 11:]

42

Pornography can have a compelling story line, great acting, complex characters, and superb directing. But it's still porn.

I don't always know quite where the line is between an acceptable level of sex and violence in a film and an unacceptable level, but I'm absolutely sure this film is way over on the unacceptable side. I won't be seeing it, and I will not recommend it to others.

[43. P&P said the following at 8:15 AM on Mar 11:]

43

Interesting. I don't have to see the movie now that you've described things so well here.

I find it interesting that the sex scenes were so graphically described in the by Plugged In site and then copied over here.

Most newspaper reviews have not been as graphic in describing the scenes you mentioned. Most newspapers also bill themselves as family-friendly.

[44. Sarah P. said the following at 8:25 AM on Mar 11:]

44

Again, meh. I'll skip, esp. after reading everyone's conclusions.

The two perspectives on this movie I am interested in are y'all's, Christians, who honestly say it is boring and slow -- and folks on the imdb.com message boards who say they were glued to their seats, thinking the movie was too short. Perhaps the movie honestly reflects the way other people in our culture view the world?

The movie Little Miss Sunshine got rave reviews, for example, but when I saw it I was revolted by its nihilism. Nihilism is the natural, hellish child of post-modernism, so Sunshine reflected a lot of the current mentality -- but a lot of the current mentality is revolting.

The good news is that movies without transcendent themes tend to fade away after a year or two. Most people don't want to root through the gutter in their free time, when they are trying to relax.

[45. Adam said the following at 8:34 AM on Mar 11:]

45

17. Dr. Ransom

I must disagree with your phrase "intentionally-lust-inducing representations."

Last night I was in a small group watching the Truth Project. In it, there was a scene with with art of full frontal nudity. It was some classic painting. I don't think that the author intended - nor was it viewed as being lust inducing.

While some depicted sexuality may intend to have that effect - some is actually meant to have the opposite effect.

I guess when it comes to sexuality/nudity we have to ask two questions. First, what was the author's original intent with the content?

Second, is this content that causes me to stumble regardless of the author's original intent?

I suppose that the first question is rather limited in value. It is a rare occurrence that a writer or director will clearly say what their intent for such a scene might be.

As far as arguing that visual is a different medium, I agree with you to an extent. I think that mere words can be lust inducing in a similar way to watching a video.

[46. mark said the following at 9:10 AM on Mar 11:]

46

Thanks for the review.

I unfortunately saw the movie, never having read the graphic novel, and thinking it would be a great action, superhero movie. I was wrong and disappointed. The ending left my totally unsatisfied.

The Dark Knight raised the same postmodern questions w/o having to resort to gratuitous sex or violence and the ending left me more satisfied. There are artistic ways to ponder cultural questions w/o resorting to sex and gore. If Christians want to explore the ideas of relative vs. absolute truth and utilitarian ethics, then watch Dark Knight. It's the same atmosphere and ethos without as much sin and temptation.

[47. IMO said the following at 9:50 AM on Mar 11:]

47

Jeremy,
So you can go into a movie theater and feel nothing watching two people have sex onscreen?

[48. Jonathan said the following at 10:08 AM on Mar 11:]

48

First off, thanks for the well-written and well thought-out article Ted! Once again, it seems to me that this comes down to accountability. I meet with a group of guys weekly and one of them mentioned that he was really interested in the film. This led to a dialogue among us about why you would see this film and why it would or would not be worth sifting through the muck. We all know each other, we know each other's strengths and weaknesses...we know how we are easily tempted. In short we all decided that none of us should see this movie because, while it might have good messages, all of us are weak in areas that this film attempts to maximize (sensuality and violence).

So, especially given the 'moral ambiguity' of the day I think the real lesson is the huge importance of having other godly people in your life who can speak truth into your life...and this can only fully happen when you are also transparent with your own struggles. In short, you need a group of people who are devoted to living a Christ-centered godly life.... Because our own heart can too easily deceive us.

[49. Ted Slater said the following at 10:11 AM on Mar 11:]

49

Jeremy (#30), you said, "It would seem that some people on here do not appreciate film as an artistic medium."

Are you saying that nudity is a *necessary* element in "film as an artistic medium"? That if I choose not to view nudity, I am somehow scorning "art"? That something is not "art" if it intentionally excludes nudity?

I am an artist, Jeremy. I've invested countless hours in developing my craft, and in using it to bless those around me. How can I, as an artist, scorn "art"? Maybe your definition of "film as an artistic medium" is insufficient, incomplete.

Yes, the nude form is beautiful. God made it that way. But just as it was against God's law to casually interact with the Ark of the Covenant, a most holy creation, it is wrong for us to interact with nude bodies as casually as we seem to be doing; in movies, for example.

[50. Christina (in green) said the following at 10:35 AM on Mar 11:]

50

Jorden (#32),

Thanks for your input and I completely understand that.

I recall a blog post about Motte Brown's Low Barrier Movie Entertainment Threshold where Elizabeth made the following comment (#7):

Oh, and I walked out in the beginning of Made of Honor--just because something's in the dollar theater doesn't make watching it a good deal. And just because I made a mistake in choosing a movie in the first place didn't mean I had to finish the movie. Better to realize the mistake and leave, losing a little money and being a little embarrassed, than to stay and take in something that would hurt me in the long run.... Though I also wanted to walk out on College Road Trip, the girl I was with refused to walk out on two movies in the same session and talked me into staying for the rest of that one. She pointed out that there was a distinction between evil and stupid and stupid wasn't actually going to hurt us. :p I'm not particularly tolerant of stupid for stupid's sake, though; I find that offensive, too. :p

Yeah...Made of Honor made me cringe more than once. The bridal shower was a big incredible disaster, though I have to say I have never been to a bridal shower that did not have any sexual overtures (getting a bread maker from my mother inspired some uncouth comments from friends). But to be willing to sit through a stupid movie over one that actually has a good ending?

I'd never recommend either, but I'd much rather sit through the stupid acts of a play boy in a pg-13 movie and see him come to his senses and actually CHANGE than to watch a bunch of stupid people never change in another pg-13 movie.

Maybe I'm desensitized, but I really don't think that is desensitization.

In this girl's defense, though, she DID want to walk out and she has just as much a problem with stupid as she does with other things. But seriously, I woulda gone back to Made of Honor.

[51. Cassandra said the following at 10:46 AM on Mar 11:]

51

I am going to possibly be outing myself as a hypocrite here, but my issue isn't necessarily Christians watching these movies, because I figure that's none of my business, it's a matter of their individual consciences and it's between them and the Lord.

My issue is the steady creep I see in churches and Christian publications comforming to the world in order to not seem too separatist or fundamentalist, I guess. Individual Christians making informed viewing choices is one thing, a Christian publication or a church is functionally an authority giving a film its blessing... does that make sense?

And for the the accusation that people on this blog don't appreciate art, that's rubbish. I may choose to see a rated R movie personally, and I know many Christians that do, but it's dangerous for a Christian authority or information source (esp. one as widely regarded as CT) to squeeze out the artistic merit of a film in an effort to counterbalance a portrayal of a glorification of sin. I almost wonder if Matthew 18:6, Mark 9:42 and Luke 17:2 apply.

Regarding the popular question of why Christians freak out about sex and not violence, it's a good question. Personally, I'm much more tempted by sex than violence. I think those that can relate on that score may understand why the "pornification of society" is alarming.

It's like the question of why Christians narrow in on sexual sin over other sins (injustice towards the poor, etc.) Society has done a 180 on its acceptance of sexual immorality during this century, and the same can't be said for an acceptance of violence, injustice, etc. We may see much more graphic violence in the media than ever before, but those actitivies when practiced in real life are still punished, while illicit sex is rewarded.

[52. Tiffany said the following at 10:51 AM on Mar 11:]

52

I agree with Chris. It's so interesting to me that Americans get so worked up over nudity/sex and seem less scandalized by violence. To me, nudity is a good thing that can be used in the wrong way. Violence is almost always wrong.

I encountered an opposite attitude when I lived in Europe. And they have much lower violent crime rates (although they do have stricter gun laws, so there may be something to that as well...)

[53. Jo said the following at 10:59 AM on Mar 11:]

53

Chris: "Maybe I'm wrong, but this discussion seems to be leaning more towards sexual content/issues than violence."

Yes, it's interesting isn't it. Gotta say, as a woman, I'm way more careful about avoiding violence than sex. I don't tend to be drawn to movies with excesses of either, but it's not a temptation thing - I just don't want to see it, simple as that.

But yeah, sex scenes (even graphic ones) won't put me off seeing a film if the story looks good, whereas constant violence certainly will.

[54. BDB said the following at 11:07 AM on Mar 11:]

54

Tiffany (#52) wrote:

>>(although they do have stricter gun laws, so there may be something to that as well...)<<

They also have a much more recent history of slaughtering each other in wars. The U.S. did that in the 1800's, Europe in the 1900's.

[55. Jeremy said the following at 11:17 AM on Mar 11:]

55

"I am an artist, Jeremy. I've invested countless hours in developing my craft, and in using it to bless those around me. How can I, as an artist, scorn 'art'?"

I was not saying that you do. Almost all humans appreciate art, and all of us have our mediums that we prefer. I, for instance, am not much moved by sculpture. Because of that, I might be tempted to notice only trivial details about a sculpture, like the font choice for the card labelling the piece. Indeed, this sort of tendency to notice only minor details while either intentionally or unintentionally missing the broader message or effect of an artwork often betrays the viewer's level of interest in the medium as a whole.

This is why I suspect that you, a number of the reviewers at Plugged In, and several other commentors on this post are fairly uninterested in film as an art form. And as I said, it is perfectly fine to be less interested in one medium than another. I am just trying to convey the viewpoint of the other side, those of us that are not as bothered by these small details.

"Jeremy,
So you can go into a movie theater and feel nothing watching two people have sex onscreen?"

Feel nothing lustful? Correct.

[56. IMO said the following at 12:05 PM on Mar 11:]

56

#55 "Feel nothing lustful? Correct."

That's impressive! and very rare...

[57. Jeremy said the following at 12:40 PM on Mar 11:]

57

"That's impressive! and very rare..."

I really have no idea how rare it is, but I'll admit I am a little confused by the mindsets I often see discussed on here. Some people seem to say how they are uncomfortable and angry when they see nudity in film ... and yet also lust? That seems like an odd cognitive dissonance (to return to that phrase).

[58. Ashley Harris said the following at 12:50 PM on Mar 11:]

58

Jeremy,

I'm confused how there is dissonance in being "uncomfortable and angry when they see nudity in film ... and yet also lust."

What do you mean? Wouldn't something that tempted you to sin stir up a little righteous anger in you as well?

[59. Christina (in green) said the following at 1:09 PM on Mar 11:]

59

Jeremy (#57),

And yet that seems to be one of the odd drivers in some pathological disorders...like serial killers...

Killing the ones that made them/tempted them to sinning?

Or maybe I just watch too much TV? Though to my credit, I do have a sister who studies serial killers cuz its part of her career plan...

[60. Jeremy said the following at 1:40 PM on Mar 11:]

60

"What do you mean? Wouldn't something that tempted you to sin stir up a little righteous anger in you as well?"

Exactly! Something that tempts me to sin either stirs up righteous anger in me which causes me to avoid the sin, or I give in and do sin, in which case it is hard to imagine still having that righteous anger. That is where I am confused, the idea of being both righteously angry about temptation and simultaneously giving in to that temptation.

[61. Jo said the following at 2:23 PM on Mar 11:]

61

Christina: "I do have a sister who studies serial killers cuz its part of her career plan."

Just curious, what's her career plan? I'm working on a psychiatric ward at the moment, although not with people who've committed crimes. I'm getting quite interested in all the issues of mental illness and crime, and punishment versus treatment...

[62. Christopher from Albuquerque said the following at 3:03 PM on Mar 11:]

62

Jeremy,

I am a fan of indie movies and international cinema. I *love* film as an art form, especially thought-provoking films that generate discussion of serious issues.

However, a film does not *have* to have nudity or gratuitous violence n order for it to be a serious, "artful" film. Most important to consider in this discussion, above all, is the Bible's view of *unnecessarily* looking upon the nakedness of *anyone* who is not one's spouse. The Bible treats this issue with the utmost seriousness. God's word never tells us that such unnecessary viewing of nudity is acceptable.

As I've written before, mothers taking care of their children and doctors treating patients are obvious exceptions, but I am still waiting for anyone to show me, *from the Bible,* using Biblical logic and principles, that God approves of our viewing nudity in the name of the "appreciation of art." I write these words as a reader of serious literature and as a film (and painting and sculpture) lover who thinks that art is one of God's greatest gifts to humanity.

[63. Sara said the following at 3:15 PM on Mar 11:]

63

Jeremy –I think people aren’t understanding you because you’re probably much less sensitive to sex and violence than average, whether by nature or because you’ve already seen so much of it. Can you remember the first time you saw violence or sex onscreen? How did you react? Maybe you’ve always been low-key, or prone to intellectualize or aestheticize or otherwise distance yourself from things (I don’t mean that necessarily in a bad way). 

Personally, I can't take watching violence at all, and if there was some artistic message trying to be put across using violence, I'd never get it because my eyes would be closed! I'm fairly desensitized to sex onscreen, but for people who get easily 'aroused', artistic messages would lost on them, too, because their minds would already be overwhelmed with being uncomfortable in the movie theatre.

Even if you never get ‘excited’ by it, I think it’s worse to watch a lot of sex onscreen because it definitely affects your own ‘performance’: the more you know about techniques or the more you pick up ‘scripts’ from movies (like, OK, I’ve got to lean in slowly, kiss her lightly, then pull back, then really kiss her), your first sexual experiences can end up being less about how things feel, and more paint-by-numbers-ish and expectation-filled. 

Have you noticed how 1950s onscreen kissing look a lot different than kisses do now? It’s weird how these things get so public that they go through trends just like clothing styles! 

[64. Jeremy said the following at 4:17 PM on Mar 11:]

64

"God's word never tells us that such unnecessary viewing of nudity is acceptable."

While this is true, it also seems like a backwards approach -- God's word also never tells us that driving is acceptable, for instance, but that does not make it unacceptable. We have freedom in Christ, and I would say that the burden of proof is on the one who wishes to make a prohibition, not on the one who wishes to exercise that freedom.

If you have a Biblical case for it being unacceptable to view nudity, I would certainly be interested in hearing it, but from our brief discussions of the issue so far, you have only mentioned the story of Ham (which I believe you agreed was an issue of parental respect rather than nudity) and passages that use "uncovering the nakedness of" as a euphemism for sex.

[65. Nick Coller said the following at 4:54 PM on Mar 11:]

65

I reckon Kathryn in comment #37 has it right on the money. When it comes to movies like this that have interesting and, dare I say it, enjoyable themes, I use PluggedIn to check out the sexual content so that I know when to avert my eyes.

Personally, I thought the movie was brilliant, as did most of my university mates, whom I can now discuss it with.

[66. B.T.Carolus said the following at 11:27 PM on Mar 11:]

66

Quasi-Response to Christina in Green at #50,

Maybe comment #7 from the post you referred to has stumbled on a brilliant way to watch movies that we feel may be borderline. Go to the movie at the dollar theater. If it proves acceptable, stay and watch the movie. If you find it offensive, you can walk out and not feel like you're wasting 10 bucks.

[67. DJS said the following at 9:21 AM on Mar 12:]

67

Jeremy:

You asked for a passage from the Bible to back up why people argue that looking at nudity is wrong: here is my response.

Genesis 3: 10 They heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden. 9 Then the LORD God called to the man, and said to him, “Where are you?” 10 He said, “I heard the sound of You in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid myself.” 11 And He said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?” 12 The man said, “The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me from the tree, and I ate.”
20 Now the man called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all the living. 21 The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them.

Adam and Eve were put by God into the first human marriage, and when they realized the shame of their sin, and their sin nature took over they were immediately conscious of their human bodies. God clothed them. He didn't say "Oh, it's OK to look at each other's nakedness." They were husband and wife, and still God provided clothes for them.

If the first humans, who were marriage partners, were not to look at each other naked, except at the appropriate time, how can YOU explain in Biblical reasoning, why it is OK for you to look at people you are not married to getting naked and having sex.

[68. Leah W said the following at 11:00 AM on Mar 12:]

68

I've seen some posts getting onto PluggedIn for content, strictness, and general review structure and I'm wondering of some of us (myself included) take their reviews as law instead of the suggestions they are.

I've just recently started watching/reading PluggedIn reviews and have come to the realization, that *some* of what's written in the reviews aren't really intended for me. I'm a grown woman with no children who should by this point in my life know what does and doesn't tempt me or lead my thinking in a direction that's not so good. So PluggedIn isn't really written with me in mind. It's written for parents with small to teenage children. (Hence the "Family-Friendly" rating system they have. And since I don't have a "family" I don't have to worry about being so "friendly". Hee hee!)

PluggedIn has a responsibility to show *everything* that's is in the movie that might be objectionable to parents on many different levels. For instance I know parents that don't want their teenagers to say "crap" while other parents are just glad their teens don't say "really bad" curse words. I hold a different standard for the movies I want see with my friends, and the movies I would take my neice to see. (Granted I don't think *anyone* in their right mind would think of taking a 6 year-old to a "R" flick!) But still... We have to understand PluggedIn's there to help us (!!!) not tell us what we can and cannot watch! I'm sure PluggedIn doesn't not see itself as the "Movie-Nazi" of critics, and I don't think we should see them as that either!

I don't pity the PluggedIn review people for the job they have to do.... although getting paid to review movies would be a pretty tempting job offer at times!!! :D So while I do read PluggedIn's reviews, and value the knowledge that I can glean from them, I don't always avoid the movies they say to avoid. They simply give me a Christian view of the pros and cons so I can make the decision of whether I still want to see a certain movie.

(btw - what's wrong with Veggie Tales?!?! LOL!)

[69. Jo said the following at 12:35 PM on Mar 12:]

69

Apryl 34:
"Does anyone walk out on movies anymore?"

I walked out of one of the Halloween films a few years ago, after like 15 minutes haha.

Yes it was a stupid decision to see it in the first place.

I was however quite proud of walking out, even though it was extremely embarrassing and I left my non-Christian friend in there on her own while I sat in the bar outside and phoned a friend.

But hey, now she knows not to try and convince me to see horror films. :)

Only time I've ever done it though. I just figured, if I'm going to spend the entire film looking away, what's the point?

[70. Tami said the following at 12:58 PM on Mar 12:]

70

Leah W wrote: "Granted I don't think *anyone* in their right mind would think of taking a 6 year-old to a "R" flick!"

Unfortunately there are folks like that out there... I went to a late-night showing of (the awful JLo movie) The Cell (one of *my* regretfully watched movies... and another example of violent film images as "art") and at a particularly gruesome point heard a child scream "Mommy!!!". Someone had brought a 4 year old to a movie even "regular" newspapers had identified as very, very scary.

[71. Liz said the following at 4:44 PM on Mar 12:]

71

I'm sure that most people, or at least the educated in what graphic novels are people, would be in agreement with the fact that in most comic books and especially graphic novels...there usually (not always), but usually is quite a bit of over-sexualization of characters, particularly women.

Watchman was correct to keep that in there, however,...there is a line to be drawn. They crossed it. Now, one must keep in mind that the person who directed the film was the same man that directed The 300...which had unnecessary distasteful scenes (not so much of violence...that was expected), but of sexual nature.

SO, with these two ideals in mind... the EDUCATED PERSON should be able to put two and two together and come to the conclusion that "OH, yeah... there will be unnecessary sexual content because of the nature of the story as well as the man who directs it."

Now, I have no idea how CT came up with their review... but I do agree with anyone who has said that it is a beautifully artistic movie. I have not seen it myself because unfortunately, from friends' reviews as well as Plugged In's... I've concluded that it is not appropriate for me to see...which is unfortunate because I would of really liked to see how the story itself...the plot...played out. Minus the excessive sexual content.

The people who went to go see it and are fuming about the content and "how dare they!"...I'm sorry, but you weren't thinking nor were well researched. That's your fault.

And whomever said that nudity is necessary in some movies: I agree with...but it DEPENDS ON THE MOVIE...and it can be TASTEFULLY done. Very tastefully. And this movie, Watchman, obviously wasn't trying.

[72. Leah said the following at 6:27 PM on Mar 12:]

72

I read some really interesting reviews on this movie (although I have not seen it).

“And how exactly did the depiction of sex and violence become the third rail of Christian criticism? While not for everyone, certainly not for children, Watchmen goes places familiar to the grittier passages of scripture. Nothing in Snyder’s film, for example, equals the bleak sexual violence depicted in “The Rape of the Concubine”(Judges 19). This is not to suggest that the film is blameless. Snyder crosses the border into gratuitous territory by making the love scene between Silk Spectre II and Night Owl more sexually explicit than in the discrete, shadowy panels of the graphic novel. The same could be said of the frequent, if admittedly, humorous reappearance of Dr. Manhattan’s glowing blue genitals. Unnecessary. But, like the horrific passages from Judges in which a young woman is raped and dismembered, Watchmen deserves to be considered within its larger narrative context.” (Gospel and Culture).

The movie was violent. Graphically violent. And had a fair bit of sex - so it’s hard to “recommend” to Christians if that’s likely to cause you to stumble.

But it was eye-poppingly rendered. A beautiful, dark, film noiry feel - complete with a fedora wearing trench coated detective like protaganist narrating entries into his diary.

It also asked questions of the human condition and asked questions about the nature of an omniscient almost omnipresent, omnipotent “god” in the form of a blue supercharged superhero. It certainly generated conversation amongst our group - and most of us enjoyed it, despite some of us not being entirely keen for a thought provoking cinematic experience. (Nathan Campbell.)

That said, I don't think I'd go to see the movie. However, I generally hate Plugged In's reviews anyway, so I think I'll have to find a better review website.

Christina (in green) #11- Wall-E did NOT say anything about global warming. Pollution, yes. Global warming, no. I adored the movie. I felt the whole pollution thing was secondary. I don't think it was political propoganda. I blogged on it and said "It's a thoroughly entertaining and captivating film. While very thought-provoking... I think many of its warnings aren't entirely necessary (although I'm not sure they were intended as genuine warnings for our real future)... It didn't feel like (and I doubt it was intended as) a forced political warning of any description." I HATE global warming propaganda. Anyone who knows me or reads my blog knows this. But I loved Wall-E.

I also loved Beverly Lewis books growing up, and Lori Wick is still one of my favourite authors. Particularly her book "The Princess". I don't really know how one can get an "over-romanticised" view from reading her books; in "The Princess", Nikolai doesn't want to put the effort into learning to love his new wife and takes his anger and frustration out on her, leaving her scared and convinced he doesn't need her; in "The Proposal", Jennings wants to marry Marianne for all the wrong reasons, love not being one of them; in "A Song for Silas" Amy is too protective of her father and disillusioned by her broken engagement to consider marrying Silas, a quality guy who loves her; I could go on forever. But what's the redeeming factor? The love of the other person eventually wins over the dissenting party, through enormous patience, perseverance, and forgiveness. That is what a relationships and marriage looks like. I took a particular liking to "The Princess" because it was more complex, both parties made mistakes and both parties had to forgive and make an effort. (In the other books this same pattern occured, but with nowhere near the complexity and reality of The Princess). Nikolai was my favourite male character from all of Wick's books. Then I ended up getting my own boyfriend, and several months later, re-read The Princess. I found Nikolai often felt very familiar to me for some reason. That's when I realised how much like my own boyfriend he was (I will have to point out Nikolai reminded me of my boyfriend in the latter half of the book- after he has woken up to himself, realised he's treating his new wife badly, and now looks for ways to learn to love her and get her to love and trust him again. Lol. Just thought I should clarify that!). Plus I always knew they were just books and didn't really take them all that seriously :P

Ted Slater (19) - I think that was really unfair of you to suggest that of Craig. He was putting out a question for discussion. That doesn't mean he's trying to find an answer in favour of it.

[73. Dave Beldon said the following at 10:27 PM on Mar 12:]

73

I saw the movie but didnt read the graphic novel. I felt like I was watching the beginning of the of a movie for 3 hours and then it just ended. I did like how it deconstructed the idea of a hero and that everyone wasnt completely good or completely evil. I think that is true of every person that has walked this planet except Jesus. I am drawn and at the same time turned away from every movie like it that is dark. I think there is a form of honesty to it that Christians dont often recognize. I do agree that the sex scene was unnecessary.

[74. Christopher from Albuquerque said the following at 10:28 PM on Mar 12:]

74

Liz (#71),

You mentioned nudity being "tastefully" shown in movies. I'm curious-- in your understanding, in terms of what one allows oneself to view, does the Bible have a concept of "tasteful nudity," outside of the contexts of marriage and situations of necessity, such as doctors operating on patients?

[75. Christopher from Albuquerque said the following at 10:34 PM on Mar 12:]

75

Liz,

To be clear, in the above contexts that I mentioned, I'm referring to *actually* being married or actually being a doctor who does operations on patients. I'm not referring to *watching* such situations (involving nudity) in movies. I see the Bible permitting the former but not the latter. If I'm understanding the Bible wrongly here, I'd like to be shown from the Bible.

[76. JJ said the following at 11:52 PM on Mar 12:]

76

I'm sorry that it appears my comments were never posted, apparently they may have been too critical. On a positive note I want to point out how great of a job I think Jeremy has done respectfully outlining his thoughts, it's fair to say we're in complete agreement. Obviously we're in the minority here, but that's ok, reading through the comments has been beneficial.

[77. Alex said the following at 12:37 AM on Mar 13:]

77

I went to see this thinking it was a cool comic book movie but I will agree with a NY newspaper critic who said Watchmen makes The Dark Knight seem light-hearted and hopeful in comparison. This movie has disgusting gore & violence Ted. The pedestrian way you wrote it doesn't even begin to capture how gruesome this movie is. What is more shocking is I was surrounded by kids ages aprox 5, 8, and 12 w/in 5 seats of me. They were w/their parents and no, none of them left early. I am appalled that we are becoming so desensitized as a country. Not to mention the movie was so outdated. I am so angry @ Christianity Today b/c this movie is no different from SAW. Oh, not to mention the lesbian kissing scene or their death in bed together. This movie should've been NC-17.

[78. Christina (in green) said the following at 9:09 AM on Mar 13:]

78

Jo (#61),

Her short-term goal is FBI agent.

Her long-term goal is focusing in homicide, specifically catching serial killers.

I must admit, the entire thing creeps me out, but I can understand the puzzle-solving mentality that would drive her to pursue something so incredibly complex.

I'd just rather stay away from dead bodies. Give me the CIA cryptology dept over that any day =p

[79. Michael said the following at 3:02 PM on Mar 13:]

79

It's been awhile since I'd read the g/n. I remember it to be, as the review puts it, messy as a g/n, but not outside grasping, how twisted and messy our world it anyhow, broken fallen as it is. There's kind of a message of redemption in the g/n, sort of, once you get past the imperfections of the characters, which, I think, lend to their credibility. No pretty superheroes running around in blue or red tights a la Superman or the Flash. They're right down to earth, in the thick and mess of it. Now, the movie? I'd concur with the review as well. I don't remember the g/n being quite as glorifying of the messiness as that was. I wouldn't recommend it, unless you'd read the g/n first and prepared yourself in advance for the viewing.

[80. E-beth said the following at 2:57 PM on Mar 15:]

80

I saw Watchmen with a (very) non-Christian friend who had this to say when I mentioned some Christians I know who didn't want to see it more because of the sex and nudity than the violence: "Shouldn't it be the other way around? I would think violence would bother [Christians'] morality more than sex and nudity, however immoral they think it is."

[81. Stephen said the following at 8:24 PM on Mar 15:]

81

Why do you people talk as though "God" will punish you for watching a film involving nudity or sexual scenes? "God" is an excuse, it gives meaning to people for life and death, "God" is just a idea created by humans for humans, Dr. Manhattan is just as believable, and realistic. if you want god to be happy you may as well mutilate your sexual, and sensory organs and live in a box.....

[82. Texas Craig said the following at 1:00 AM on Mar 16:]

82

I am surprised by the number of people expressing the thought that violence should bother Christians more than the sex/nudity. While I can understand the concern, it is not a biblical one.

The Bible clearly indicates that the marriage relationship is intended to represent/be symbolic of the relationship we have with God. Thus, marriage is to be held in high honor and the marriage bed kept pure. Furthermore, we are told throughout scripture that there is but one proper context for sexual relations -- marriage.

On the other hand, violence is representative of the spiritual battle that is ongoing and we understand that violence has many different proper roles. Even in the Old Testament, there were times when the Jews were commanded to engage in violence against others. Further, government wields the sword for a purpose. Even Jesus said he came to bring a sword, and he will return to do battle.

Thus, while we may be called to be peacemakers, there are many contexts in which violence is not only acceptable but proper. So, while certainly violence may be inappropriate in a movie, given the whole of scripture, I would contend that Christians OUGHT to be more upset by improper sexuality (which is dishonoring of marriage and, thus, the symbol of our relationship with God) much more than we ought to get upset about violence, which is more akin to any other general type of sin.

Now, I certainly understand people who get more queasy at the sight of violence. But, from a spiritual standpoint based on a study of scripture, I believe that Christians should be more offended by improper sexuality than by violence.

[83. SunshineGirl said the following at 7:03 AM on Mar 16:]

83

#39 If sex is portrayed, for instance, I don't think that's the end of the inquiry.

I think it is the end of the inquiry.

God never said 'flee temptation unless it is in a movie that is brilliantly artistic, beautifully written, and leaves the viewer with warm fuzzies.'

I'm sticking with Post #17...the Biblical injunctions to avoid personal sexual temptation are not vague and not merely optional.

And Post #46...There are artistic ways to ponder cultural questions w/o resorting to sex and gore.

As for #45...I guess when it comes to sexuality/nudity we have to ask two questions. First, what was the author's original intent with the content? Second, is this content that causes me to stumble regardless of the author's original intent?

Do I really have to go analyze the intent of every author before I can go see a flick? That is way too much work. It seems easier for me to simply avoid movies that conflict with God's instructions to me. Avoid movies that have sexual content regardless of the intent. So I miss out on art...big deal. A teensy sacrifice to pay for enriching my spirit.

[84. Matt from DC said the following at 1:38 PM on Mar 16:]

84

In comment #17 and #83 I see something mentioned that I cannot find in the Bible. I am hoping for someone to point this out to me.

I can't find a Biblical injunction to flee temptation.

I can find Jesus facing and overcoming temptation.

I do read Paul exhorting the Corinthians to hold up under temptation with God's strength.

I also see Paul warn the Corinthians to flee sexual immorality.

* By challenging the support you use for your point does not mean that I disagree with it.

[85. Christina (in green) said the following at 1:55 PM on Mar 16:]

85

Matt from DC (#84),

You'll have to narrow your search on that...its not flee temptation, its flee sexual temptation.

Ex: Joseph in Genesis.

References:
Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body.
1 Cor 6:18

Apparently there are other references to fleeing temptation in 1 cor 6. But this is the verse most people are referencing when discussing this particular temptation.

[86. Rachael said the following at 2:27 PM on Mar 16:]

86

re: fleeing temptation

Though 1 Cor. 10:13 doesn't mention fleeing temptation, it does say a way out will be provided:

"No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it."

[87. Matt from DC said the following at 2:42 PM on Mar 16:]

87

Christina,

You would be correct if sexual temptation is the same as sexual immorality. I accepted in #84 that we are commanded to flee from sexual immorality.

Joseph was fleeing from Potiphar's wife's initiation of adultery.

[88. Christopher from Albuquerque said the following at 4:40 PM on Mar 16:]

88

Stephen (#81),

God doesn't "punish" Christians. On a Roman cross, Jesus Christ took God's punishment for our sin (rebellion) against Him. Someone had to take the punishment, in order for justice to be done, and Christ took it. God does discipline Christians at times, lovingly, as a loving parent would, but He does not "punish" us.

However, for people who have not submitted to Christ as their Savior from God's punishment for sin, it is a very different matter. All people know that God exists-- God has made it plain to them through the double witnesses of creation and their consciences, telling them when they commit wrongs. The problem is not that there is not enough "evidence" for the God of the Bible. The evidence is overwhelming, and people love to hide it from it-- as I did, before God saved me from my rebellion against Him.

Will you have a Savior and a Substitute when you stand before God? Either Christ pays for your sins, or you will, eternally. I pray, in sincere love, for your sake, that it will be the former and not the latter.

[89. Christina (in green) said the following at 8:05 AM on Mar 17:]

89

Matt,

I don't understand your differentiation.

How/why are you separating sexual immorality from sexual temptation?

[90. Jeremy said the following at 9:25 AM on Mar 17:]

90

"How/why are you separating sexual immorality from sexual temptation?"

Sin is different from temptation. This is a very serious distinction. Temptation is not wrong, temptation is not sinful. Matt correctly pointed out that when so many say to "flee temptation", they do not have Scriptural support. We are to flee from sin, which may at times mean leaving tempting situations, but the temptation itself is not wrong.

[91. Leah said the following at 8:17 AM on Mar 18:]

91

Christina in green- there's a MAJOR difference between sexual temptation and sexual immorality! That's like asking "what's the difference between lying and being tempted to lie". Uh... one of them is just being tempted, the other is actually doing it :P I agree we should flee temptation- anyone who claims otherwise is turning a blind eye to some pretty obvious biblical suggestions- but we mustn't equalise sin with temptation.

[92. Bex said the following at 5:00 AM on Mar 19:]

92

First of all, I am not a Christian. I am agnotist, verging on atheist. As such, I feel as though I can go and see a film without worrying if seeing it will contribute to my eventual going to hell. I went to see Watchmen with a very open mind, having already been a fan of the grapic novel. As a piece of artistic cinema, it is astounding.

Although set in a parallel universe, the themes it brings up are very relevent today. If the end of the world was to occur tomorrow, what would you do? As Christians, you may herald the End as a new beginning, as the Rapture, as a chance to finally be at one with your God. In a Godless world, people would most likely be driven insane by this knowledge. The nudity and violence in Watchmen isn't just there because 'it's cool' - it's an accurate reflection of what the human population would be doing if there was a chance they would be drastically, and fatally, brought to an abrupt end. The film warns us about what we are capable of, when given enough power to destroy ourselves. That cannot be effectively put forward without violence or nudity, it would be inaccurate, as well as an insult to our intelligence.

The desperation of the characters can most effectively be shown through violence and sex. And don't forget, outside of your Christian morals, sex and violence is happening everywhere. The themes brought up in the film are ones that some people see on a regular basis, which make them even more powerful.

Lastly, may I stress that the definition of a pornography is imagery or video intended to create sexual excitement. The sex in Watchmen is either repulsive, abhorrant, or ridiculous, not exciting. It's the human body, people! Don't blow it out of proportion.

[93. Cassandra said the following at 11:48 AM on Jun 3:]

93

I just saw that Christianity Today gave "Drag Me To Hell" 3 out of 4 stars. I'm beginning to wonder - what would they give a film a poor review for? Clearly not for content Christians would want to avoid. I keep on looking for a 1 or a 0 out of 4 stars. It seems like CT wants to be just like the world and assess movies from worldly standards only. What's the point of being a Christian film review? Drag me to HELL gets 3 out of 4 stars? Shame on them.

[94. Cassandra said the following at 11:48 AM on Jun 3:]

94

btw thanks for letting us comment on older posts again.

[1. Matthew said the following at 1:48 PM on Mar 10:]

1

Read the book instead. The violence and sex are far less explicit (though certainly present, and I can't say the same for all of Mr. Moore's work), and it deals with the themes far better. I'm with you: I loved the book, but the cost of watching the Watchmen movie is just too high for me.

[2. Dr. Ransom said the following at 1:55 PM on Mar 10:]

2

Thanks for a great even-handed post about the issue, Ted. I cannot understand what seems to be a desensitization to sexually immoral visuals in movies so as to reach all those thought-provoking themes. Is such a desensitization incidental, or intentional? Either way, how is God glorified through that?

Ah yes, but now, let the comparisons to The Dark Knight begin. Yet there was no personally tempting material in that "dark" film than what seems to have been included in Watchmen.

And I do not mean that everyone ought to be able to put up with acted-out violence. However, Scripture doesn't say to avoid representations of violence (though arguments can be made that it's not necessary), yet it is very clear about avoiding sexual immorality.

[3. Sarah P. said the following at 2:20 PM on Mar 10:]

3

Ted, this is a really good post. After reading it, I thought, meh. Too bad. I'll probably skip the movie, then, even though I've heard people having very thought-provoking discussions about it already.

Then I went on imdb.com to see how regular people are rating the movie. So far, 25,000+ people give it an 8.3 out of 10. This tells me that there's something there that's "getting" people. And it's not just sex. Sex and the City has a 5.4 out of 10, for example. Dark Knight has a 9.0 out of 10.

I still don't know if I'll go see it. I'll wait until I have a good reason. But I bet there is something there.

[4. Jeremy said the following at 2:45 PM on Mar 10:]

4

"Is such a desensitization incidental, or intentional? Either way, how is God glorified through that?"

Idea, which I am neither supporting nor rejecting, just offering it as a discussion:

We live in a sexualized culture. One cannot realistically expect to avoid all sexual images in our modern era. Therefore, if one cannot seem to refrain from lusting when confronted with a sexual image, would it be honoring to God to pursue desensitization so as to more easily avoid sin?

Side note, but Watchmen was very disappointing; it is not nearly as thought-provoking or deep as some are claiming. It is occasionally visually impressive, but otherwise rather shallow and downright cheesy. And yes, extremely violent.

[5. Rachael said the following at 2:49 PM on Mar 10:]

5

Wow, that's a lot of graphic detail. It is interesting to me how the conscience can seemingly differ among Christians, not only with regard to the media, but life decisions and language use as well.

[6. Historyloveralways said the following at 3:12 PM on Mar 10:]

6

Ted,

Thanks for the warning about Watchmen. I particularly liked when you said: Most obviously, I don't see how the rampant over-the-top sexual content could possibly be any good for me. I feel exactly the same way.

I think a film is redeemed when it redeems us. This film doesn't seem to be redeeming.

[7. DannieA said the following at 3:22 PM on Mar 10:]

7

You know, my friends and I were out for a girls night out and we had not seen plugged-in reviews so we ended up going to see it because although we are girls, we are so comic book movie oriented and I have to say....

SKIP IT! I'm all about not being extreme one way or the other, but I have to say that this movie does relish the R rating and as we were discussing, we didn't know if we were watching a movie or a porno.

This movie made 'the punisher' look like a rated G comic book movie.

oh and did I mention that the violence was ewwww gross? disgusting, we really shoulda gone to see confessions of a shop-a-holic, but the start time was too late for all of us and we decided on this one...yeah not our best move. We're no longer watching a movie unless we've read up on the reviews.

[8. Cassandra said the following at 3:26 PM on Mar 10:]

8

"Nevertheless, for Christianity Today, the film is redeemed by its story and the well-executed telling of that story."

Talk about cognitive dissonance.

I am so disenchanted with CT. I'm very glad you guys are still holding to a Biblical worldview, and despite the backlash, appear to lovingly be a thorn in their side.

[9. Melissa said the following at 3:28 PM on Mar 10:]

9

I started using Plugged In! a few years to check out the potentially questionable content of movies before going to see them. As a born again Christian from a worldly background, I had been brought up desensitized to all sorts of stuff in movies and music that is displeasing to the Lord, such as foul language (including taking the Lord's name in vain) and explicit sexual images. But God used the reviews at Plugged In! along with His Word and other factors to make me more aware of what kind of junk I had been taking in and how it could be negatively affecting me spiritually. I've since become a lot more discerning about what movies I choose to see based on their content, cut a lot of the junk that I had been taking in our, and I feel like I have grown so much spiritually as a result.

[10. Adam said the following at 3:32 PM on Mar 10:]

10

First of all, thanks Ted for trying to be pretty even-handed with the post.

I think we do need to consider just how much "wrestling in the mud" we allow ourselves to do.

However, sometimes I question the value of all the mud being distilled and brought to the surface. For instance, I could tell you about about some media that has both male and female nudity at the very start. Murder, rape scenes, incest scenes, I could go on and on. The title is Genesis. Don't even get me started about the graphic sexuality of Song of Solomon.

If I use the existence of objectionable content as the primary decision-maker it can cause some problems. Granted, there are some movies that I will avoid for this very reason - which is why I appreciate Plugged In.

I also appreciate CT's review in that it attempts to keep the content within the focus of the entire movie. It also usually doesn't attempt to decide for everyone whether they should see the movie or not. Time and time again, I see Plugged In as trying to make that decision for you.

If I were to have one wish for Plugged In, it would be that they would go the same lengths for positive content as they do for negative. They spent 6 lines talking about all the positive aspects of the movie. They had no problem using 30 on just sexuality though. Having seen the movie myself over the weekend; I think PI could have written a little more positive if the same effort went into it as they put into graphically detailing each hint of sexuality.

[11. Christina (in green) said the following at 3:46 PM on Mar 10:]

11

Rome didn't fall in a day...

I caught myself singing be careful little ears in the shower the other day.

Ted,
There are days when I agree with you on this subject, and others when I don't.

I definitely agree that we should be discerning and most of the time, I find movies to use certain stuff that is completely irrelevant and the story would be just as good without it - and perhaps result in a better movie.

But there are other times when the story can't be taken out of its context without destroying the story. In those cases, I'm a little more lenient on those things.

I'm not gonna go and watch Harold and Kumar go to Whitecastle simply to get a good laugh when its rife with sexually explicit material and poor language. (Even when its not filled with it, it would be a horrible watch, though).

However, there are times when your reviews put on the altar the actual story simply to get the "clean" approach to movie making. I, for one, can't imagine how YOU of all people could stand Wall-E, for example.

YES, its CLEAN. No language, no sex, Wall-E is adorable in his devotion to Eva. But the ENTIRE movie is about how humans destroyed earth through pollution, causing global warming and making the planet "unliveable".

It is the most political Disney movie (and pixar movie) that I have ever seen.

My father isn't nearly so passionate as you are in the global warming mess and yet refused to see the movie!

Ok...so the first option, I would never have my kids see and the second generates good conversation, but do you see what I'm getting at?

The story content is just as important as the package it comes in from a CHRISTIAN point of view. And sometimes I see the two being divorced way to frequently - by both Plugged In and CT.

Examples in other media worlds would be Beverly Lewis and Lori Wick novels that are clean beyond measure but the stories evoke feelings of romance that, when indulged in too frequently, can cause an over-romanticized view of the world.

And then there's Ted Dekker, whose books are filled with violence, but the stories all point to really deep theological issues.

I'd suggest you just stop going to the movies =/

[12. Craig M said the following at 3:48 PM on Mar 10:]

12

I saw it. The violence is hard-core and constant, the sex much less so. Rape isn't smiled upon by the movie; the offender is portrayed as a hedonist, amoral anti-hero who slowly destroys his soul. The fundamental problem with "Watchmen" is that its philosophical perspective is just wrong. Not to get too detailed, but the film is set in an alternate 1985, and the impending peril of global thermonuclear war propelled by the equally vile U.S. and Soviet governments is the backdrop of the entire plot. Of course, this entire leftist perspective considered so "enlightened" by university types in the actual 1980's has since been disproven by actual events. Reagan won the Cold War without firing a shot, no one was itching to push the nuclear button, and the collapse of the Soviet Union and subsequent revelations showed the stark difference between the free West and the evil empire. "Watchmen" completely ignores this. It's dystopian and misanthropic without just cause, and sees nothing but hypocrisy and stench wherever people tread. It's that outlook, and not the violence and sex quotient, that ultimately make the film a spectacular but confused failure.

[13. Some Dude said the following at 3:53 PM on Mar 10:]

13

I saw this movie, and I was disappointed.

I agree with the review above. At times, the movie was terribly boring. I just kept waiting for something interesting to happen. Other times, the gore seemed to be only for the shock value. I don't mind violence in movies, but I think that it should be used to make a point.

Another thing that I did not like about this movie was the absence of a good guy to root for. Every single character was morally depraved.

Also, I was not comfortable with the ending. I will be as ambiguous as I can be to avoid spoiling the ending. The superhero characters seem to suggest that after all the bad things they did, the end justifies the means. Not a good message.

[14. Ashley Harris said the following at 3:54 PM on Mar 10:]

14

Christina (in green),

I haven't thought about Lori Wick novels in years! At one time, I had read everything she had ever written. They did stir up an "over-romanticized view of the world" in me. Thanks for bringing that up.

[15. Cassandra said the following at 3:55 PM on Mar 10:]

15

The point is, these are Christian reviews. If I want to read a secular review of a film, I'll go to Rotten Tomatoes. It's just so jarring to see functional pornography described with the superlatives Ted delineates above with the word "Christianity" in the logo above it.

[16. Dorene said the following at 4:02 PM on Mar 10:]

16

I made the unfortunate error of watching this movie since I am a huge fan of Superhero movies and comics. I totally agree with what Ted says about this movie... as Christians it not worth watching something this degrading...I left the theater feeling spectacularly disappointed!! and promising myself to check the Pluggedin reviews before I decide to watch another movie... thanks for doing this reviewers at Pluggedin... huge appreciation for this from countless Boundless fans! hmmm... did I just rhyme :)

[17. Dr. Ransom said the following at 4:04 PM on Mar 10:]

17

For instance, I could tell you about about some media that has both male and female nudity at the very start. Murder, rape scenes, incest scenes, I could go on and on. The title is Genesis. Don't even get me started about the graphic sexuality of Song of Solomon.

Adam (no. 10), are you seriously trying to compare graphic visual, intentionally-lust-inducing representations (often approving) of sexual sins with the sexual sins only described in the Bible -- or even worse, the lavish, God-glorifying celebration of emotional and physical intimacy in Song of Songs?

Such a comparison is like rotten apples to oranges, sir. :-)

Neither does a Romans 14 brothers-with-weaker-conscience argument apply here. People's degrees of temptation and resistance may vary, of course, but the Biblical injunctions to avoid personal sexual temptation are not vague and not merely optional.

[18. Craig M said the following at 4:07 PM on Mar 10:]

18

Question--does the exposure of a woman's breasts in a movie, by itself, make it a pornographic film? Opinions?

[19. Ted Slater said the following at 4:14 PM on Mar 10:]

19

Craig M (#18) -- my dad is a physician. As part of his training, he has viewed movies that show a woman's breasts. No, he was not watching pornography.

What is your point in asking that question? Are you a physician? Is looking at a woman's breasts part of the Lord's calling on your life, His vocation for you? Or are you simply looking for an excuse to look at women's breasts?

[20. IMO said the following at 4:23 PM on Mar 10:]

20

#19 lol ...yea I've noticed Craig likes to mention a woman's breasts a lot.

[21. Craig M said the following at 4:31 PM on Mar 10:]

21

Ted--ha, very amusing. No, the question wasn't personal, but it was sweet of you to ask. Just wondering what people think. My inclination is that nudity in art (not medical films) by itself is not necessarily pornographic; intent and context are key. I didn't think the three-second revelation of a woman's breasts in "Braveheart" was pornographic in nature, for instance. And the brief exposure of Schwarzeneggar's backside in "the Terminator" doesn't strike me as pornographic; the guy is playing a machine, and there's no sexual context at all. I thought "Watchmen" walked up to the line; certainly it's in a different league than my two examples. But to be honest, when I hear something described as "pornographic" I tend to equate that with "obscene" material; that is, explicit sex divorced from all artistic merit. Maybe I'm being too legalistic; I am a lawyer after all.

[22. Christina (in green) said the following at 4:35 PM on Mar 10:]

22

Ashley,

I read them all, too =p

My mom was always crazy with me and my sister when it came to discernment.

I can't tell you how often my mom grounded me from reading because of those books and the over-romanticized view I'd get.

I still tell people I was grounded from reading books simply because it really sounds so outrageous =p But I really do understand why I was =p (it would be accompanied with being restricted from listening to my parents' Christian love songs CD's, too...)

[23. Dani said the following at 4:50 PM on Mar 10:]

23

Good rebuttal, Dr. Ransom (#17). Exactly what I was thinking!

Yes, Genesis is graphic, but all of the violence and sex is very clearly condemned. Even if Watchmen's rapist is portrayed negatively (Craig M., #12), I imagine that the film glorifies its other sex scenes.

(By the way, Dr. Ransom, is your name a reference to the Space Trilogy?)

[24. Cassandra said the following at 5:05 PM on Mar 10:]

24

"Is looking at a woman's breasts part of the Lord's calling on your life, His vocation for you?"

As long as they belong to his wife, yes! Prov 5:19

;)

[25. BDB said the following at 5:09 PM on Mar 10:]

25

>>This movie made 'the punisher' look like a rated G comic book movie. <<

Oh, dear. I thought that movie was a little too unenlightened. I guess I'll wait until The Watchmen comes out edited on TNT.

[26. brx said the following at 5:12 PM on Mar 10:]

26

Ted S (#19),

I don't know Craig's motivations, but for me, his question begs consideration of just how could an effective public policy be written against pornography? It seems to me that any such policy would be fraught with complications.

The policy question is particularly relevant to me because I'm currently participating in a several week long, multi-church, multi-denominational discussion of religion and politics in an interactive panel format.

Thoughts?

Grace, peace & adventure!

[27. Sara said the following at 5:15 PM on Mar 10:]

27

Craig M, #18,

It's just another subjective-objective thing.

Are peanuts poisonous? You can't answer the question, because they're neither, in and of themselves. You need a subject to figure that out. Let's use allergy-prone Suzy as a subject. Are peanuts poisonous to Suzy? Yes.

Setting aside the obvious objective cases where something's explicitly made to be porn, it the same with you and porn: do you get off on it? Then for you, it's porn.

If the bare-breast movie was made to be porn, but it doesn't turn you on, then for you, it's porn objectively and not-porn subjectively.

But really, you already know all of that intuitively! If you're a Christian looking to 'flee temptation', having long discussions about what is and isn't porn is just an excuse to talk about it.

[28. Historyloveralways said the following at 5:30 PM on Mar 10:]

28

Craig,

In our culture the exposure of a woman's breasts has a sexual overtures. In other cultures, where people don't wear much clothes breasts don't have that significance. So whether or not the exposure of a woman's breasts in public (such as a film) is pornographic or not depends on whether or not the exposure of the breasts was meant for sexual purposes. There are women going around in native cultures with their breasts exposed and it doesn't have a sexual significance. Sometimes pictures are taken of these same women for articles and the exposure of their breasts still doesn't have a sexual significance. But in the developed world in films it does have a sexual significance, and thus is pornographic.

Since our culture sexualizes women's breasts we always see them in a sexual manner. But this is not so in all cultures. In some cultures breasts have no sexual overtures.

[29. Tim said the following at 6:14 PM on Mar 10:]

29

I would have to agree with you Ted. Zack Snyder has an impressive visual style, and from the looks of the trailers, "Watchmen" is no exception.

I had been following this project for a while and had always been intrigued by the premise. However, as it came closer and closer to release, I began to devle further into the source material. From what I learned, I knew there was a good chance that the film would have unnecessary gratuitous nudity. What I did not expect, which was confirmed by reviews, was the level of gratuitous violence. A film like "The Dark Knight" showed us that violent scenes can be just as effective when they are not actually shown (obviously, not all of the film's violence was hidden).

To me, it is a shame that the director chose to revel in gratuitous sex and violence. If it had not been for Snyder's creative choice, I would have more than likely seen the film due to its interesting and thought provoking story (from what I have read). I think "Watchmen" will be one of those cases where its content diminshes its box office returns.

I guess I could always read the graphic novel, but something tells me there would be no use in that.

[30. Jeremy said the following at 6:45 PM on Mar 10:]

30

"What is your point in asking that question? Are you a physician? Is looking at a woman's breasts part of the Lord's calling on your life, His vocation for you? Or are you simply looking for an excuse to look at women's breasts?"

This seems like an incendiary and somewhat childish accusation. I cannot answer for Craig, but I will answer for myself -- I believe that God approves of my involvement with and appreciation of art, and of my pursuit of aesthetic beauty and insights into new aspects of life. I do not think He disaproves of that sometimes involving a non-lustful viewing of nudity or a non-approving viewing of sinful behavior. I believe that God wanst to challenge and inspire me, and that He often uses film as a medium to do so.

It would seem that some people on here do not appreciate film as an artistic medium. That is fine. But the insults directed towards those of us that do, and the implication that the only reason we might see an R-rated movie is to try to glimpse some boobs is more than a little insulting.

[31. Kelly said the following at 6:54 PM on Mar 10:]

31

I know I won't be seeing it because of the violent content it contains. Every single review has mentioned this.

I watch movies for entertainment and to me, there is NOTHING entertaining about seeing people hurt. Ever.

[32. Jorden said the following at 7:33 PM on Mar 10:]

32

I agree with you Ted. Although I still think CT gave it way too high a score for the content of the movie. I read the pluggedin reviews and I don't see how -anyone- could see the movie and not be led astray sexually at least some. And that's not counting the rest of it.

Christina(#11) while I think you are correct and saying that it is the most political movie from Disney. I, personally, really enjoyed it because Wall-E was so endearing and the plot of it seemed to have a good warning in that we need to let technology have a rest sometimes and live our lives as humans. Plus the movie was basically completely clean, which only about 2 movies per year actually accomplish.

And just for clarification, I'm about level with Ted on his global warming viewpoints. I don't agree that this planet will be like Wall-E described at all, but that is hardly temptation for me. Not like the sexuality in Watchmen would be.

[33. DannieA said the following at 7:40 PM on Mar 10:]

33

#18...ummm put it together with the one explicit sex scene and other factors such as looking at Dr. Manhattan's package in all it's "blue" glory....and there you go.

[34. Apryl said the following at 8:13 PM on Mar 10:]

34

Does anyone walk out on movies anymore? It seems like those who didn't like it still stayed to watch it until the end. Is getting your monies worth really worth it? I'm very thankful for the PluggedIn reviews so that I can decide beforehand whether the show is worth the money or not.

[35. Texas Craig said the following at 8:18 PM on Mar 10:]

35

Jeremy (#4):

I do not think that desensitization ever causes one to become stronger in battling sexual immorality. Sexuality is like a drug. It has its proper and beneficial role. But, its abuse often leads to deeper and deeper levels of abuse, and greater exposure to it often leads to a greater desire for it and dependence on it. There is a reason that pornography creates addictions in many men. Continued exposure to it does not break the addiction - rather, it feeds it. Pornography addiction needs to be cut out completely to overcome it, and sexual immorality is not battled by exposure to more sexual content.

I understand the desire to obtain a "redeeming message" from something worldly, but I do not see how one can reconcile the idea of watching clearly worldly films, with offensive content, when we have instructions like that contained in Philippians 4:8:

"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."

There are plenty of other verses that would apply as well (flee from sexual immorality; take captive every thought; be transformed by the renewing of your mind, etc.)

[36. Rachael said the following at 10:36 PM on Mar 10:]

36

Whether or not something is or is not technical porn is not the ultimate question. Would I want my husband looking at another woman's private parts during a movie (not including cultures where exposed areas might the norm)? Absolutely not!!

[37. Kathryn said the following at 11:08 PM on Mar 10:]

37

I saw the movie last night with my Boyfriend. We read the Plugged In Online review, as well as the imdb breakdown of the sex/violence in the film. We decided in the end that we would see it. We're both big fans of the comic book and found that though this was different, we still enjoyed it.

As for the sex and violence, I'd felt that I was prepared for the worst parts of it and when they were on screen, I turned away my eyes. For the most part, the violence wasn't any worse than seen in the graphic novel (with a couple of exceptions that Josh assures me I didn't want to see) and neither of us saw the sex scene, so I cannot comment on that.

I feel that the issues it brought up and the commentary it made on the state of humanity were interesting and we saw it in order to have informed conversation about those issues with our non-Christian friends (most of whom would have seen the movie and not read the graphic novel).

I'm very glad we went into the film informed about what we would face. I'm glad that given that preparation, I was able to turn away and not see things I would rather not. I'm also glad I went because most of what I did see was interesting, engaging and thought provoking.

[38. beatrice81 said the following at 11:09 PM on Mar 10:]

38

As usual, Sara has the most incisive remarks on the blog. "If you're a Christian looking to 'flee temptation', having long discussions about what is and isn't porn is just an excuse to talk about it."

Same goes for bemoaning 'over-the-top sexual content', while repeating and lingering over long lists detailing every real or percieved sex scene.

[39. Craig M. said the following at 12:40 AM on Mar 11:]

39

Fair enough. Let's NOT talk about breasts. I can't recall ever writing on the subject before, but if IMO thinks it's my "thing," I sure don't want to drag him down with me. Didn't mean to make everyone jumpy. Notice that I wasn't defending "Watchmen"; my opinion is that the flim lacks sufficient artistic merit to justify its excesses. If it were as thoughtful and meaningful as it THINKS it is, that would be another story. As a big film guy, though, I strongly dislike the "anything too graphic for a 12-year-old is too graphic for EVERYONE" mode of argument. Some of the very best films I've ever seen have had material I wouldn't allow a kid to watch.

I disagree a bit with Sara. I don't think "do you get off on it" is always the only question. It is certainly A question. But I think the message and overall effect of a film is often more important. For example. I see lots (and lots) of violent films. War movies, crime movies, historical epics, science fiction. But I refuse to enter the theatre for "slasher" or "torture porn" movies, which focus almost longingly on the excruciating suffering of a (usually young and female) doomed victim for, essentially, thrills. What's the difference? In most good war films, the violence serves both the story and the artistic message of the film. Either the film is drawing attention to the great sacrifices made to defend freedom, or alternatively (and more often these days, unfortunately) the pointlessness and evil of war. The violence is not delivered to the audience in a spirit of voyeurism, and it doesn't invite the viewer to indulge in sadism. "Torture porn" movies are showing the viewer pain and death for fun. So as a result, the effect on the viewer is very different. The viewer of one film should come away with an appreciation for freedom, for sacrifice, and (if the characters are convincingly portrayed) for the preciousness and fragility of life. The viewer of the other film comes away dulled to sensation, encouraged to see life as disposable and cheap, and cruelty as normative and (even worse) attractive. This sort of distinction, by the way, is the only thing separating the intense violence of "Saw" from the equally intense violence of "The Passion of the Christ." The actual level of violence portrayed is pretty much identical (Roger Ebert called "Passion" the most violent movie he'd ever seen but gave it four stars); the purpose makes all the difference.

I think this applies to a lot of different subjects in film. If sex is portrayed, for instance, I don't think that's the end of the inquiry. How is it portrayed? Is it degrading and violent? Is that degrading violence given an attractive sheen? If that's so, it's bad news even if there's no explicit nudity.

[40. Chris said the following at 6:11 AM on Mar 11:]

40

Maybe I'm wrong, but this discussion seems to be leaning more towards sexual content/issues than violence.

I've always found this interesting in our culture. We go ape over a "wardrobe malfunction" during the Super Bowl, yet violence gets more of a free pass. People want to ban dirty movies but don't seem to care about Dirty Harry.

Just a thought....

[41. Emma said the following at 6:29 AM on Mar 11:]

41

I went and read CT's review and I actually liked it a lot more than Plugged In'. They covered a lot of material and gave a lot of information about the movie to give a well informed review, rather than just listing all the swear words and sex scenes.

While I appreciate Plugged In's honesty towards TV and Movie content - they sure call it like it is rather than glossing over details, I certainly agree with Adam (#10).
Plugged In seems to spend a lot of time criticizing movies and giving us very little reason to see them.

It brings up a dilemma for me: personally I don't want to be stuck watching Wall E and Veggie Tale movies for the rest of my life, but if the movies out there are really that bad then I have Plugged In to thank for bringing that to my attention. It just seems that Plugged In damns every movie with very faint praise.

[42. Dan Gill said the following at 7:00 AM on Mar 11:]

42

Pornography can have a compelling story line, great acting, complex characters, and superb directing. But it's still porn.

I don't always know quite where the line is between an acceptable level of sex and violence in a film and an unacceptable level, but I'm absolutely sure this film is way over on the unacceptable side. I won't be seeing it, and I will not recommend it to others.

[43. P&P said the following at 8:15 AM on Mar 11:]

43

Interesting. I don't have to see the movie now that you've described things so well here.

I find it interesting that the sex scenes were so graphically described in the by Plugged In site and then copied over here.

Most newspaper reviews have not been as graphic in describing the scenes you mentioned. Most newspapers also bill themselves as family-friendly.

[44. Sarah P. said the following at 8:25 AM on Mar 11:]

44

Again, meh. I'll skip, esp. after reading everyone's conclusions.

The two perspectives on this movie I am interested in are y'all's, Christians, who honestly say it is boring and slow -- and folks on the imdb.com message boards who say they were glued to their seats, thinking the movie was too short. Perhaps the movie honestly reflects the way other people in our culture view the world?

The movie Little Miss Sunshine got rave reviews, for example, but when I saw it I was revolted by its nihilism. Nihilism is the natural, hellish child of post-modernism, so Sunshine reflected a lot of the current mentality -- but a lot of the current mentality is revolting.

The good news is that movies without transcendent themes tend to fade away after a year or two. Most people don't want to root through the gutter in their free time, when they are trying to relax.

[45. Adam said the following at 8:34 AM on Mar 11:]

45

17. Dr. Ransom

I must disagree with your phrase "intentionally-lust-inducing representations."

Last night I was in a small group watching the Truth Project. In it, there was a scene with with art of full frontal nudity. It was some classic painting. I don't think that the author intended - nor was it viewed as being lust inducing.

While some depicted sexuality may intend to have that effect - some is actually meant to have the opposite effect.

I guess when it comes to sexuality/nudity we have to ask two questions. First, what was the author's original intent with the content?

Second, is this content that causes me to stumble regardless of the author's original intent?

I suppose that the first question is rather limited in value. It is a rare occurrence that a writer or director will clearly say what their intent for such a scene might be.

As far as arguing that visual is a different medium, I agree with you to an extent. I think that mere words can be lust inducing in a similar way to watching a video.

[46. mark said the following at 9:10 AM on Mar 11:]

46

Thanks for the review.

I unfortunately saw the movie, never having read the graphic novel, and thinking it would be a great action, superhero movie. I was wrong and disappointed. The ending left my totally unsatisfied.

The Dark Knight raised the same postmodern questions w/o having to resort to gratuitous sex or violence and the ending left me more satisfied. There are artistic ways to ponder cultural questions w/o resorting to sex and gore. If Christians want to explore the ideas of relative vs. absolute truth and utilitarian ethics, then watch Dark Knight. It's the same atmosphere and ethos without as much sin and temptation.

[47. IMO said the following at 9:50 AM on Mar 11:]

47

Jeremy,
So you can go into a movie theater and feel nothing watching two people have sex onscreen?

[48. Jonathan said the following at 10:08 AM on Mar 11:]

48

First off, thanks for the well-written and well thought-out article Ted! Once again, it seems to me that this comes down to accountability. I meet with a group of guys weekly and one of them mentioned that he was really interested in the film. This led to a dialogue among us about why you would see this film and why it would or would not be worth sifting through the muck. We all know each other, we know each other's strengths and weaknesses...we know how we are easily tempted. In short we all decided that none of us should see this movie because, while it might have good messages, all of us are weak in areas that this film attempts to maximize (sensuality and violence).

So, especially given the 'moral ambiguity' of the day I think the real lesson is the huge importance of having other godly people in your life who can speak truth into your life...and this can only fully happen when you are also transparent with your own struggles. In short, you need a group of people who are devoted to living a Christ-centered godly life.... Because our own heart can too easily deceive us.

[49. Ted Slater said the following at 10:11 AM on Mar 11:]

49

Jeremy (#30), you said, "It would seem that some people on here do not appreciate film as an artistic medium."

Are you saying that nudity is a *necessary* element in "film as an artistic medium"? That if I choose not to view nudity, I am somehow scorning "art"? That something is not "art" if it intentionally excludes nudity?

I am an artist, Jeremy. I've invested countless hours in developing my craft, and in using it to bless those around me. How can I, as an artist, scorn "art"? Maybe your definition of "film as an artistic medium" is insufficient, incomplete.

Yes, the nude form is beautiful. God made it that way. But just as it was against God's law to casually interact with the Ark of the Covenant, a most holy creation, it is wrong for us to interact with nude bodies as casually as we seem to be doing; in movies, for example.

[50. Christina (in green) said the following at 10:35 AM on Mar 11:]

50

Jorden (#32),

Thanks for your input and I completely understand that.

I recall a blog post about Motte Brown's Low Barrier Movie Entertainment Threshold where Elizabeth made the following comment (#7):

Oh, and I walked out in the beginning of Made of Honor--just because something's in the dollar theater doesn't make watching it a good deal. And just because I made a mistake in choosing a movie in the first place didn't mean I had to finish the movie. Better to realize the mistake and leave, losing a little money and being a little embarrassed, than to stay and take in something that would hurt me in the long run.... Though I also wanted to walk out on College Road Trip, the girl I was with refused to walk out on two movies in the same session and talked me into staying for the rest of that one. She pointed out that there was a distinction between evil and stupid and stupid wasn't actually going to hurt us. :p I'm not particularly tolerant of stupid for stupid's sake, though; I find that offensive, too. :p

Yeah...Made of Honor made me cringe more than once. The bridal shower was a big incredible disaster, though I have to say I have never been to a bridal shower that did not have any sexual overtures (getting a bread maker from my mother inspired some uncouth comments from friends). But to be willing to sit through a stupid movie over one that actually has a good ending?

I'd never recommend either, but I'd much rather sit through the stupid acts of a play boy in a pg-13 movie and see him come to his senses and actually CHANGE than to watch a bunch of stupid people never change in another pg-13 movie.

Maybe I'm desensitized, but I really don't think that is desensitization.

In this girl's defense, though, she DID want to walk out and she has just as much a problem with stupid as she does with other things. But seriously, I woulda gone back to Made of Honor.

[51. Cassandra said the following at 10:46 AM on Mar 11:]

51

I am going to possibly be outing myself as a hypocrite here, but my issue isn't necessarily Christians watching these movies, because I figure that's none of my business, it's a matter of their individual consciences and it's between them and the Lord.

My issue is the steady creep I see in churches and Christian publications comforming to the world in order to not seem too separatist or fundamentalist, I guess. Individual Christians making informed viewing choices is one thing, a Christian publication or a church is functionally an authority giving a film its blessing... does that make sense?

And for the the accusation that people on this blog don't appreciate art, that's rubbish. I may choose to see a rated R movie personally, and I know many Christians that do, but it's dangerous for a Christian authority or information source (esp. one as widely regarded as CT) to squeeze out the artistic merit of a film in an effort to counterbalance a portrayal of a glorification of sin. I almost wonder if Matthew 18:6, Mark 9:42 and Luke 17:2 apply.

Regarding the popular question of why Christians freak out about sex and not violence, it's a good question. Personally, I'm much more tempted by sex than violence. I think those that can relate on that score may understand why the "pornification of society" is alarming.

It's like the question of why Christians narrow in on sexual sin over other sins (injustice towards the poor, etc.) Society has done a 180 on its acceptance of sexual immorality during this century, and the same can't be said for an acceptance of violence, injustice, etc. We may see much more graphic violence in the media than ever before, but those actitivies when practiced in real life are still punished, while illicit sex is rewarded.

[52. Tiffany said the following at 10:51 AM on Mar 11:]

52

I agree with Chris. It's so interesting to me that Americans get so worked up over nudity/sex and seem less scandalized by violence. To me, nudity is a good thing that can be used in the wrong way. Violence is almost always wrong.

I encountered an opposite attitude when I lived in Europe. And they have much lower violent crime rates (although they do have stricter gun laws, so there may be something to that as well...)

[53. Jo said the following at 10:59 AM on Mar 11:]

53

Chris: "Maybe I'm wrong, but this discussion seems to be leaning more towards sexual content/issues than violence."

Yes, it's interesting isn't it. Gotta say, as a woman, I'm way more careful about avoiding violence than sex. I don't tend to be drawn to movies with excesses of either, but it's not a temptation thing - I just don't want to see it, simple as that.

But yeah, sex scenes (even graphic ones) won't put me off seeing a film if the story looks good, whereas constant violence certainly will.

[54. BDB said the following at 11:07 AM on Mar 11:]

54

Tiffany (#52) wrote:

>>(although they do have stricter gun laws, so there may be something to that as well...)<<

They also have a much more recent history of slaughtering each other in wars. The U.S. did that in the 1800's, Europe in the 1900's.

[55. Jeremy said the following at 11:17 AM on Mar 11:]

55

"I am an artist, Jeremy. I've invested countless hours in developing my craft, and in using it to bless those around me. How can I, as an artist, scorn 'art'?"

I was not saying that you do. Almost all humans appreciate art, and all of us have our mediums that we prefer. I, for instance, am not much moved by sculpture. Because of that, I might be tempted to notice only trivial details about a sculpture, like the font choice for the card labelling the piece. Indeed, this sort of tendency to notice only minor details while either intentionally or unintentionally missing the broader message or effect of an artwork often betrays the viewer's level of interest in the medium as a whole.

This is why I suspect that you, a number of the reviewers at Plugged In, and several other commentors on this post are fairly uninterested in film as an art form. And as I said, it is perfectly fine to be less interested in one medium than another. I am just trying to convey the viewpoint of the other side, those of us that are not as bothered by these small details.

"Jeremy,
So you can go into a movie theater and feel nothing watching two people have sex onscreen?"

Feel nothing lustful? Correct.

[56. IMO said the following at 12:05 PM on Mar 11:]

56

#55 "Feel nothing lustful? Correct."

That's impressive! and very rare...

[57. Jeremy said the following at 12:40 PM on Mar 11:]

57

"That's impressive! and very rare..."

I really have no idea how rare it is, but I'll admit I am a little confused by the mindsets I often see discussed on here. Some people seem to say how they are uncomfortable and angry when they see nudity in film ... and yet also lust? That seems like an odd cognitive dissonance (to return to that phrase).

[58. Ashley Harris said the following at 12:50 PM on Mar 11:]

58

Jeremy,

I'm confused how there is dissonance in being "uncomfortable and angry when they see nudity in film ... and yet also lust."

What do you mean? Wouldn't something that tempted you to sin stir up a little righteous anger in you as well?

[59. Christina (in green) said the following at 1:09 PM on Mar 11:]

59

Jeremy (#57),

And yet that seems to be one of the odd drivers in some pathological disorders...like serial killers...

Killing the ones that made them/tempted them to sinning?

Or maybe I just watch too much TV? Though to my credit, I do have a sister who studies serial killers cuz its part of her career plan...

[60. Jeremy said the following at 1:40 PM on Mar 11:]

60

"What do you mean? Wouldn't something that tempted you to sin stir up a little righteous anger in you as well?"

Exactly! Something that tempts me to sin either stirs up righteous anger in me which causes me to avoid the sin, or I give in and do sin, in which case it is hard to imagine still having that righteous anger. That is where I am confused, the idea of being both righteously angry about temptation and simultaneously giving in to that temptation.

[61. Jo said the following at 2:23 PM on Mar 11:]

61

Christina: "I do have a sister who studies serial killers cuz its part of her career plan."

Just curious, what's her career plan? I'm working on a psychiatric ward at the moment, although not with people who've committed crimes. I'm getting quite interested in all the issues of mental illness and crime, and punishment versus treatment...

[62. Christopher from Albuquerque said the following at 3:03 PM on Mar 11:]

62

Jeremy,

I am a fan of indie movies and international cinema. I *love* film as an art form, especially thought-provoking films that generate discussion of serious issues.

However, a film does not *have* to have nudity or gratuitous violence n order for it to be a serious, "artful" film. Most important to consider in this discussion, above all, is the Bible's view of *unnecessarily* looking upon the nakedness of *anyone* who is not one's spouse. The Bible treats this issue with the utmost seriousness. God's word never tells us that such unnecessary viewing of nudity is acceptable.

As I've written before, mothers taking care of their children and doctors treating patients are obvious exceptions, but I am still waiting for anyone to show me, *from the Bible,* using Biblical logic and principles, that God approves of our viewing nudity in the name of the "appreciation of art." I write these words as a reader of serious literature and as a film (and painting and sculpture) lover who thinks that art is one of God's greatest gifts to humanity.

[63. Sara said the following at 3:15 PM on Mar 11:]

63

Jeremy –I think people aren’t understanding you because you’re probably much less sensitive to sex and violence than average, whether by nature or because you’ve already seen so much of it. Can you remember the first time you saw violence or sex onscreen? How did you react? Maybe you’ve always been low-key, or prone to intellectualize or aestheticize or otherwise distance yourself from things (I don’t mean that necessarily in a bad way). 

Personally, I can't take watching violence at all, and if there was some artistic message trying to be put across using violence, I'd never get it because my eyes would be closed! I'm fairly desensitized to sex onscreen, but for people who get easily 'aroused', artistic messages would lost on them, too, because their minds would already be overwhelmed with being uncomfortable in the movie theatre.

Even if you never get ‘excited’ by it, I think it’s worse to watch a lot of sex onscreen because it definitely affects your own ‘performance’: the more you know about techniques or the more you pick up ‘scripts’ from movies (like, OK, I’ve got to lean in slowly, kiss her lightly, then pull back, then really kiss her), your first sexual experiences can end up being less about how things feel, and more paint-by-numbers-ish and expectation-filled. 

Have you noticed how 1950s onscreen kissing look a lot different than kisses do now? It’s weird how these things get so public that they go through trends just like clothing styles! 

[64. Jeremy said the following at 4:17 PM on Mar 11:]

64

"God's word never tells us that such unnecessary viewing of nudity is acceptable."

While this is true, it also seems like a backwards approach -- God's word also never tells us that driving is acceptable, for instance, but that does not make it unacceptable. We have freedom in Christ, and I would say that the burden of proof is on the one who wishes to make a prohibition, not on the one who wishes to exercise that freedom.

If you have a Biblical case for it being unacceptable to view nudity, I would certainly be interested in hearing it, but from our brief discussions of the issue so far, you have only mentioned the story of Ham (which I believe you agreed was an issue of parental respect rather than nudity) and passages that use "uncovering the nakedness of" as a euphemism for sex.

[65. Nick Coller said the following at 4:54 PM on Mar 11:]

65

I reckon Kathryn in comment #37 has it right on the money. When it comes to movies like this that have interesting and, dare I say it, enjoyable themes, I use PluggedIn to check out the sexual content so that I know when to avert my eyes.

Personally, I thought the movie was brilliant, as did most of my university mates, whom I can now discuss it with.

[66. B.T.Carolus said the following at 11:27 PM on Mar 11:]

66

Quasi-Response to Christina in Green at #50,

Maybe comment #7 from the post you referred to has stumbled on a brilliant way to watch movies that we feel may be borderline. Go to the movie at the dollar theater. If it proves acceptable, stay and watch the movie. If you find it offensive, you can walk out and not feel like you're wasting 10 bucks.

[67. DJS said the following at 9:21 AM on Mar 12:]

67

Jeremy:

You asked for a passage from the Bible to back up why people argue that looking at nudity is wrong: here is my response.

Genesis 3: 10 They heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden. 9 Then the LORD God called to the man, and said to him, “Where are you?” 10 He said, “I heard the sound of You in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid myself.” 11 And He said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?” 12 The man said, “The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me from the tree, and I ate.”
20 Now the man called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all the living. 21 The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them.

Adam and Eve were put by God into the first human marriage, and when they realized the shame of their sin, and their sin nature took over they were immediately conscious of their human bodies. God clothed them. He didn't say "Oh, it's OK to look at each other's nakedness." They were husband and wife, and still God provided clothes for them.

If the first humans, who were marriage partners, were not to look at each other naked, except at the appropriate time, how can YOU explain in Biblical reasoning, why it is OK for you to look at people you are not married to getting naked and having sex.

[68. Leah W said the following at 11:00 AM on Mar 12:]

68

I've seen some posts getting onto PluggedIn for content, strictness, and general review structure and I'm wondering of some of us (myself included) take their reviews as law instead of the suggestions they are.

I've just recently started watching/reading PluggedIn reviews and have come to the realization, that *some* of what's written in the reviews aren't really intended for me. I'm a grown woman with no children who should by this point in my life know what does and doesn't tempt me or lead my thinking in a direction that's not so good. So PluggedIn isn't really written with me in mind. It's written for parents with small to teenage children. (Hence the "Family-Friendly" rating system they have. And since I don't have a "family" I don't have to worry about being so "friendly". Hee hee!)

PluggedIn has a responsibility to show *everything* that's is in the movie that might be objectionable to parents on many different levels. For instance I know parents that don't want their teenagers to say "crap" while other parents are just glad their teens don't say "really bad" curse words. I hold a different standard for the movies I want see with my friends, and the movies I would take my neice to see. (Granted I don't think *anyone* in their right mind would think of taking a 6 year-old to a "R" flick!) But still... We have to understand PluggedIn's there to help us (!!!) not tell us what we can and cannot watch! I'm sure PluggedIn doesn't not see itself as the "Movie-Nazi" of critics, and I don't think we should see them as that either!

I don't pity the PluggedIn review people for the job they have to do.... although getting paid to review movies would be a pretty tempting job offer at times!!! :D So while I do read PluggedIn's reviews, and value the knowledge that I can glean from them, I don't always avoid the movies they say to avoid. They simply give me a Christian view of the pros and cons so I can make the decision of whether I still want to see a certain movie.

(btw - what's wrong with Veggie Tales?!?! LOL!)

[69. Jo said the following at 12:35 PM on Mar 12:]

69

Apryl 34:
"Does anyone walk out on movies anymore?"

I walked out of one of the Halloween films a few years ago, after like 15 minutes haha.

Yes it was a stupid decision to see it in the first place.

I was however quite proud of walking out, even though it was extremely embarrassing and I left my non-Christian friend in there on her own while I sat in the bar outside and phoned a friend.

But hey, now she knows not to try and convince me to see horror films. :)

Only time I've ever done it though. I just figured, if I'm going to spend the entire film looking away, what's the point?

[70. Tami said the following at 12:58 PM on Mar 12:]

70

Leah W wrote: "Granted I don't think *anyone* in their right mind would think of taking a 6 year-old to a "R" flick!"

Unfortunately there are folks like that out there... I went to a late-night showing of (the awful JLo movie) The Cell (one of *my* regretfully watched movies... and another example of violent film images as "art") and at a particularly gruesome point heard a child scream "Mommy!!!". Someone had brought a 4 year old to a movie even "regular" newspapers had identified as very, very scary.

[71. Liz said the following at 4:44 PM on Mar 12:]

71

I'm sure that most people, or at least the educated in what graphic novels are people, would be in agreement with the fact that in most comic books and especially graphic novels...there usually (not always), but usually is quite a bit of over-sexualization of characters, particularly women.

Watchman was correct to keep that in there, however,...there is a line to be drawn. They crossed it. Now, one must keep in mind that the person who directed the film was the same man that directed The 300...which had unnecessary distasteful scenes (not so much of violence...that was expected), but of sexual nature.

SO, with these two ideals in mind... the EDUCATED PERSON should be able to put two and two together and come to the conclusion that "OH, yeah... there will be unnecessary sexual content because of the nature of the story as well as the man who directs it."

Now, I have no idea how CT came up with their review... but I do agree with anyone who has said that it is a beautifully artistic movie. I have not seen it myself because unfortunately, from friends' reviews as well as Plugged In's... I've concluded that it is not appropriate for me to see...which is unfortunate because I would of really liked to see how the story itself...the plot...played out. Minus the excessive sexual content.

The people who went to go see it and are fuming about the content and "how dare they!"...I'm sorry, but you weren't thinking nor were well researched. That's your fault.

And whomever said that nudity is necessary in some movies: I agree with...but it DEPENDS ON THE MOVIE...and it can be TASTEFULLY done. Very tastefully. And this movie, Watchman, obviously wasn't trying.

[72. Leah said the following at 6:27 PM on Mar 12:]

72

I read some really interesting reviews on this movie (although I have not seen it).

“And how exactly did the depiction of sex and violence become the third rail of Christian criticism? While not for everyone, certainly not for children, Watchmen goes places familiar to the grittier passages of scripture. Nothing in Snyder’s film, for example, equals the bleak sexual violence depicted in “The Rape of the Concubine”(Judges 19). This is not to suggest that the film is blameless. Snyder crosses the border into gratuitous territory by making the love scene between Silk Spectre II and Night Owl more sexually explicit than in the discrete, shadowy panels of the graphic novel. The same could be said of the frequent, if admittedly, humorous reappearance of Dr. Manhattan’s glowing blue genitals. Unnecessary. But, like the horrific passages from Judges in which a young woman is raped and dismembered, Watchmen deserves to be considered within its larger narrative context.” (Gospel and Culture).

The movie was violent. Graphically violent. And had a fair bit of sex - so it’s hard to “recommend” to Christians if that’s likely to cause you to stumble.

But it was eye-poppingly rendered. A beautiful, dark, film noiry feel - complete with a fedora wearing trench coated detective like protaganist narrating entries into his diary.

It also asked questions of the human condition and asked questions about the nature of an omniscient almost omnipresent, omnipotent “god” in the form of a blue supercharged superhero. It certainly generated conversation amongst our group - and most of us enjoyed it, despite some of us not being entirely keen for a thought provoking cinematic experience. (Nathan Campbell.)

That said, I don't think I'd go to see the movie. However, I generally hate Plugged In's reviews anyway, so I think I'll have to find a better review website.

Christina (in green) #11- Wall-E did NOT say anything about global warming. Pollution, yes. Global warming, no. I adored the movie. I felt the whole pollution thing was secondary. I don't think it was political propoganda. I blogged on it and said "It's a thoroughly entertaining and captivating film. While very thought-provoking... I think many of its warnings aren't entirely necessary (although I'm not sure they were intended as genuine warnings for our real future)... It didn't feel like (and I doubt it was intended as) a forced political warning of any description." I HATE global warming propaganda. Anyone who knows me or reads my blog knows this. But I loved Wall-E.

I also loved Beverly Lewis books growing up, and Lori Wick is still one of my favourite authors. Particularly her book "The Princess". I don't really know how one can get an "over-romanticised" view from reading her books; in "The Princess", Nikolai doesn't want to put the effort into learning to love his new wife and takes his anger and frustration out on her, leaving her scared and convinced he doesn't need her; in "The Proposal", Jennings wants to marry Marianne for all the wrong reasons, love not being one of them; in "A Song for Silas" Amy is too protective of her father and disillusioned by her broken engagement to consider marrying Silas, a quality guy who loves her; I could go on forever. But what's the redeeming factor? The love of the other person eventually wins over the dissenting party, through enormous patience, perseverance, and forgiveness. That is what a relationships and marriage looks like. I took a particular liking to "The Princess" because it was more complex, both parties made mistakes and both parties had to forgive and make an effort. (In the other books this same pattern occured, but with nowhere near the complexity and reality of The Princess). Nikolai was my favourite male character from all of Wick's books. Then I ended up getting my own boyfriend, and several months later, re-read The Princess. I found Nikolai often felt very familiar to me for some reason. That's when I realised how much like my own boyfriend he was (I will have to point out Nikolai reminded me of my boyfriend in the latter half of the book- after he has woken up to himself, realised he's treating his new wife badly, and now looks for ways to learn to love her and get her to love and trust him again. Lol. Just thought I should clarify that!). Plus I always knew they were just books and didn't really take them all that seriously :P

Ted Slater (19) - I think that was really unfair of you to suggest that of Craig. He was putting out a question for discussion. That doesn't mean he's trying to find an answer in favour of it.

[73. Dave Beldon said the following at 10:27 PM on Mar 12:]

73

I saw the movie but didnt read the graphic novel. I felt like I was watching the beginning of the of a movie for 3 hours and then it just ended. I did like how it deconstructed the idea of a hero and that everyone wasnt completely good or completely evil. I think that is true of every person that has walked this planet except Jesus. I am drawn and at the same time turned away from every movie like it that is dark. I think there is a form of honesty to it that Christians dont often recognize. I do agree that the sex scene was unnecessary.

[74. Christopher from Albuquerque said the following at 10:28 PM on Mar 12:]

74

Liz (#71),

You mentioned nudity being "tastefully" shown in movies. I'm curious-- in your understanding, in terms of what one allows oneself to view, does the Bible have a concept of "tasteful nudity," outside of the contexts of marriage and situations of necessity, such as doctors operating on patients?

[75. Christopher from Albuquerque said the following at 10:34 PM on Mar 12:]

75

Liz,

To be clear, in the above contexts that I mentioned, I'm referring to *actually* being married or actually being a doctor who does operations on patients. I'm not referring to *watching* such situations (involving nudity) in movies. I see the Bible permitting the former but not the latter. If I'm understanding the Bible wrongly here, I'd like to be shown from the Bible.

[76. JJ said the following at 11:52 PM on Mar 12:]

76

I'm sorry that it appears my comments were never posted, apparently they may have been too critical. On a positive note I want to point out how great of a job I think Jeremy has done respectfully outlining his thoughts, it's fair to say we're in complete agreement. Obviously we're in the minority here, but that's ok, reading through the comments has been beneficial.

[77. Alex said the following at 12:37 AM on Mar 13:]

77

I went to see this thinking it was a cool comic book movie but I will agree with a NY newspaper critic who said Watchmen makes The Dark Knight seem light-hearted and hopeful in comparison. This movie has disgusting gore & violence Ted. The pedestrian way you wrote it doesn't even begin to capture how gruesome this movie is. What is more shocking is I was surrounded by kids ages aprox 5, 8, and 12 w/in 5 seats of me. They were w/their parents and no, none of them left early. I am appalled that we are becoming so desensitized as a country. Not to mention the movie was so outdated. I am so angry @ Christianity Today b/c this movie is no different from SAW. Oh, not to mention the lesbian kissing scene or their death in bed together. This movie should've been NC-17.

[78. Christina (in green) said the following at 9:09 AM on Mar 13:]

78

Jo (#61),

Her short-term goal is FBI agent.

Her long-term goal is focusing in homicide, specifically catching serial killers.

I must admit, the entire thing creeps me out, but I can understand the puzzle-solving mentality that would drive her to pursue something so incredibly complex.

I'd just rather stay away from dead bodies. Give me the CIA cryptology dept over that any day =p

[79. Michael said the following at 3:02 PM on Mar 13:]

79

It's been awhile since I'd read the g/n. I remember it to be, as the review puts it, messy as a g/n, but not outside grasping, how twisted and messy our world it anyhow, broken fallen as it is. There's kind of a message of redemption in the g/n, sort of, once you get past the imperfections of the characters, which, I think, lend to their credibility. No pretty superheroes running around in blue or red tights a la Superman or the Flash. They're right down to earth, in the thick and mess of it. Now, the movie? I'd concur with the review as well. I don't remember the g/n being quite as glorifying of the messiness as that was. I wouldn't recommend it, unless you'd read the g/n first and prepared yourself in advance for the viewing.

[80. E-beth said the following at 2:57 PM on Mar 15:]

80

I saw Watchmen with a (very) non-Christian friend who had this to say when I mentioned some Christians I know who didn't want to see it more because of the sex and nudity than the violence: "Shouldn't it be the other way around? I would think violence would bother [Christians'] morality more than sex and nudity, however immoral they think it is."

[81. Stephen said the following at 8:24 PM on Mar 15:]

81

Why do you people talk as though "God" will punish you for watching a film involving nudity or sexual scenes? "God" is an excuse, it gives meaning to people for life and death, "God" is just a idea created by humans for humans, Dr. Manhattan is just as believable, and realistic. if you want god to be happy you may as well mutilate your sexual, and sensory organs and live in a box.....

[82. Texas Craig said the following at 1:00 AM on Mar 16:]

82

I am surprised by the number of people expressing the thought that violence should bother Christians more than the sex/nudity. While I can understand the concern, it is not a biblical one.

The Bible clearly indicates that the marriage relationship is intended to represent/be symbolic of the relationship we have with God. Thus, marriage is to be held in high honor and the marriage bed kept pure. Furthermore, we are told throughout scripture that there is but one proper context for sexual relations -- marriage.

On the other hand, violence is representative of the spiritual battle that is ongoing and we understand that violence has many different proper roles. Even in the Old Testament, there were times when the Jews were commanded to engage in violence against others. Further, government wields the sword for a purpose. Even Jesus said he came to bring a sword, and he will return to do battle.

Thus, while we may be called to be peacemakers, there are many contexts in which violence is not only acceptable but proper. So, while certainly violence may be inappropriate in a movie, given the whole of scripture, I would contend that Christians OUGHT to be more upset by improper sexuality (which is dishonoring of marriage and, thus, the symbol of our relationship with God) much more than we ought to get upset about violence, which is more akin to any other general type of sin.

Now, I certainly understand people who get more queasy at the sight of violence. But, from a spiritual standpoint based on a study of scripture, I believe that Christians should be more offended by improper sexuality than by violence.

[83. SunshineGirl said the following at 7:03 AM on Mar 16:]

83

#39 If sex is portrayed, for instance, I don't think that's the end of the inquiry.

I think it is the end of the inquiry.

God never said 'flee temptation unless it is in a movie that is brilliantly artistic, beautifully written, and leaves the viewer with warm fuzzies.'

I'm sticking with Post #17...the Biblical injunctions to avoid personal sexual temptation are not vague and not merely optional.

And Post #46...There are artistic ways to ponder cultural questions w/o resorting to sex and gore.

As for #45...I guess when it comes to sexuality/nudity we have to ask two questions. First, what was the author's original intent with the content? Second, is this content that causes me to stumble regardless of the author's original intent?

Do I really have to go analyze the intent of every author before I can go see a flick? That is way too much work. It seems easier for me to simply avoid movies that conflict with God's instructions to me. Avoid movies that have sexual content regardless of the intent. So I miss out on art...big deal. A teensy sacrifice to pay for enriching my spirit.

[84. Matt from DC said the following at 1:38 PM on Mar 16:]

84

In comment #17 and #83 I see something mentioned that I cannot find in the Bible. I am hoping for someone to point this out to me.

I can't find a Biblical injunction to flee temptation.

I can find Jesus facing and overcoming temptation.

I do read Paul exhorting the Corinthians to hold up under temptation with God's strength.

I also see Paul warn the Corinthians to flee sexual immorality.

* By challenging the support you use for your point does not mean that I disagree with it.

[85. Christina (in green) said the following at 1:55 PM on Mar 16:]

85

Matt from DC (#84),

You'll have to narrow your search on that...its not flee temptation, its flee sexual temptation.

Ex: Joseph in Genesis.

References:
Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body.
1 Cor 6:18

Apparently there are other references to fleeing temptation in 1 cor 6. But this is the verse most people are referencing when discussing this particular temptation.

[86. Rachael said the following at 2:27 PM on Mar 16:]

86

re: fleeing temptation

Though 1 Cor. 10:13 doesn't mention fleeing temptation, it does say a way out will be provided:

"No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it."

[87. Matt from DC said the following at 2:42 PM on Mar 16:]

87

Christina,

You would be correct if sexual temptation is the same as sexual immorality. I accepted in #84 that we are commanded to flee from sexual immorality.

Joseph was fleeing from Potiphar's wife's initiation of adultery.

[88. Christopher from Albuquerque said the following at 4:40 PM on Mar 16:]

88

Stephen (#81),

God doesn't "punish" Christians. On a Roman cross, Jesus Christ took God's punishment for our sin (rebellion) against Him. Someone had to take the punishment, in order for justice to be done, and Christ took it. God does discipline Christians at times, lovingly, as a loving parent would, but He does not "punish" us.

However, for people who have not submitted to Christ as their Savior from God's punishment for sin, it is a very different matter. All people know that God exists-- God has made it plain to them through the double witnesses of creation and their consciences, telling them when they commit wrongs. The problem is not that there is not enough "evidence" for the God of the Bible. The evidence is overwhelming, and people love to hide it from it-- as I did, before God saved me from my rebellion against Him.

Will you have a Savior and a Substitute when you stand before God? Either Christ pays for your sins, or you will, eternally. I pray, in sincere love, for your sake, that it will be the former and not the latter.

[89. Christina (in green) said the following at 8:05 AM on Mar 17:]

89

Matt,

I don't understand your differentiation.

How/why are you separating sexual immorality from sexual temptation?

[90. Jeremy said the following at 9:25 AM on Mar 17:]

90

"How/why are you separating sexual immorality from sexual temptation?"

Sin is different from temptation. This is a very serious distinction. Temptation is not wrong, temptation is not sinful. Matt correctly pointed out that when so many say to "flee temptation", they do not have Scriptural support. We are to flee from sin, which may at times mean leaving tempting situations, but the temptation itself is not wrong.

[91. Leah said the following at 8:17 AM on Mar 18:]

91

Christina in green- there's a MAJOR difference between sexual temptation and sexual immorality! That's like asking "what's the difference between lying and being tempted to lie". Uh... one of them is just being tempted, the other is actually doing it :P I agree we should flee temptation- anyone who claims otherwise is turning a blind eye to some pretty obvious biblical suggestions- but we mustn't equalise sin with temptation.

[92. Bex said the following at 5:00 AM on Mar 19:]

92

First of all, I am not a Christian. I am agnotist, verging on atheist. As such, I feel as though I can go and see a film without worrying if seeing it will contribute to my eventual going to hell. I went to see Watchmen with a very open mind, having already been a fan of the grapic novel. As a piece of artistic cinema, it is astounding.

Although set in a parallel universe, the themes it brings up are very relevent today. If the end of the world was to occur tomorrow, what would you do? As Christians, you may herald the End as a new beginning, as the Rapture, as a chance to finally be at one with your God. In a Godless world, people would most likely be driven insane by this knowledge. The nudity and violence in Watchmen isn't just there because 'it's cool' - it's an accurate reflection of what the human population would be doing if there was a chance they would be drastically, and fatally, brought to an abrupt end. The film warns us about what we are capable of, when given enough power to destroy ourselves. That cannot be effectively put forward without violence or nudity, it would be inaccurate, as well as an insult to our intelligence.

The desperation of the characters can most effectively be shown through violence and sex. And don't forget, outside of your Christian morals, sex and violence is happening everywhere. The themes brought up in the film are ones that some people see on a regular basis, which make them even more powerful.

Lastly, may I stress that the definition of a pornography is imagery or video intended to create sexual excitement. The sex in Watchmen is either repulsive, abhorrant, or ridiculous, not exciting. It's the human body, people! Don't blow it out of proportion.

[93. Cassandra said the following at 11:48 AM on Jun 3:]

93

I just saw that Christianity Today gave "Drag Me To Hell" 3 out of 4 stars. I'm beginning to wonder - what would they give a film a poor review for? Clearly not for content Christians would want to avoid. I keep on looking for a 1 or a 0 out of 4 stars. It seems like CT wants to be just like the world and assess movies from worldly standards only. What's the point of being a Christian film review? Drag me to HELL gets 3 out of 4 stars? Shame on them.

[94. Cassandra said the following at 11:48 AM on Jun 3:]

94

btw thanks for letting us comment on older posts again.