Rated R for Violence, Language, Nudity, and Sexual Content
This Sunday Pastor Stephen preached about God as the Greatest Artist, who displays his beauty through the created order. He spoke of his love for movies, and the fact that any piece of art (such as film) tells us something about the artist.
In many Christian circles, there’s a strong opinion that Christians ought to avoid art with sinful elements in it. This is especially the case with movies, and even more especially the case with movies that earn an R rating. The three big no-nos are cussing, killing, and coitus (I know, it’s cheesy, but I really wanted to get the alliteration in). Ironically, most Christian parents would rather have their children exposed to the reality of violence (which God did not intend) than the reality of sex (which God did intend within certain channels). But by and large, the consensus is that art (and especially movies) with these things in it ought to be avoided as sinful.
The first problem with this, though, is (as Brian Godowa points out) that if the Bible were ever faithfully adapted into a movie, it would be lucky to receive an R rating, and NC17 would be much more likely. The Bible accurately depicts human life in a fallen world, with all the messiness and sin that this entails. There’s always a problem if you are trying to be holier than the Bible.
The fact is, we live in a fallen, sinful world: things are broken, from violence to human language to sex. If art is going to be honest about the facts of our existence it needs to deal with these things. We can bury our head in the sand all we want, but these things are still true. This doesn’t mean that we should glorify human sinfulness. But it does mean that we cannot simply ignore it. It is a valid expression of art to deal with these things. I am not recommending that you start watching R rated movies. Everyone has certain limits that they shouldn’t go beyond. But I am saying that we can learn a lot about our fallen world through art.
And art that shows the brokenness of our world also shows the need for our redemption. Jesus entered into our broken world, and he made it whole. He did not shelter himself from “bad influences.” He recognized the problems of human life and he dealt with them, by taking them to the cross. So the next time you see something that reminds you of the ugliness of the world. The next time you see a violent movie, or one in which sex is misused, let it remind you of how desperately our world needs redemption: redemption that comes to us in Jesus.
Posted by: Gene Schlesinger
Aha! wonderful post.
Applicable to me as you know.
i’ve thought and wrestled over this topic for a few years. What to censor? what not to censor?
I feet that the main reason why most “christian” movies suck is because of their failure to portray this fallen world. Language especially. I’ve been looking forward to the first “christian” film with a PG-13 rating.
However, I have reservations depicting sexual acts on screen. I understand that it might be my own conviction, but somehow i can’t find a way to argue that the act isn’t soft core pornography. I’d like to hear your reaction to this.
thanks gene
-dan
Very thoughtful questions, and important to ask. I have the tendency to agree with you about the sex-act thing. I personally try to avoid seeing nudity, for my own good (whether through scene skipping, or the old faithful “look away” method). I know some people who say that they can see nudity in a film without lusting. So for THEM, the situation is different.
Interestingly, this is an issue that we come upon almost exclusively in filmic media. Almost no one criticizes the Venus de Milo, even though she is topless (and armless).
We still need to ask about the actors involved though, especially when the scene goes beyond nudity to some sort of simulation of sex. Are they not being led into lust by this action?
I think that, in general, most films could deal with the reality of sex, and even sexual sin without actual depictions of sex. Suggestion and inference can go a long way towards indicating what’s going on behind closed doors.
At the same time, I think of the film Hardcore, by Paul Schrader (who frequently collaborated with Martin Scorsese). I’ve not seen it, but my understanding is that it deals with a father whose daughter runs away and becomes involved in the sex industry in California. The father heads out to bring his daughter home. In the midst of this, the vicissitudes of the 1970s pornography industry are put on display. I think that the story is worth telling, it’s about redemption (and it exposes some of the evils of pornography). And I’m not sure how well or realistically it could be told without some of the sexual content. I know my own limits, and so, won’t ever see the film to make an educated judgment. In fact, I wouldn’t recommend it to others. But I do think that it shows some instances where some things with which I am uncomfortable are artistically viable.
To sum up, my main concerns are: 1) The ethics involved in the actual production films with sexual material. 2) The condition of the heart of those who watch such films (are they being let into lust?).
But I also recognize that there are probably some cases where it can be a valid form of artistic expression (e.g., if it’s there to depict reality, even fallen reality, but not to glorify the sin), even if it’s not a form of art that I need to enjoy.
Interesting points. A film that comes to mind when you speak of artistic expression is the 40 year old virgin. Say what you will, but in the end, Andy waits until marriage to have sex, and all the friends that tried to get him laid had their own problems as a result. Judd Apatow seems to support the idea of abstinence, and supports sanctity of marriage….even if it is really rated R.