#52568 - ClearPlay

[wired]

52568 - ClearPlay, or How I came to lose a lot of respect for Cognoscente.

I remember reading Cognoscente's rant about ClearPlay (#40217). I disagreed with it, but figured since it was rant it would be pointless to respond.

But I thought his/her answer to today's question was pretty ridiculous. The mental gymnastics comment was a condescending attack. I also thought that comparing editing movies to Laodicean neutrality took a good bit of wresting. Primarily, I thought the comment was annoying because it implied a false dichotomy where you either have to be totally against edited movies while being intellectually savvy enough to appreciate R-rated art OR you have reject all suspicious film completely.

I view Cognoscente's response (and earlier diatribe) as the polar opposite of people who condemn watching edited movies because you are supporting the filmmakers who created the original movie. (I don't think the Lord was suggesting that the Laodiceans become extremists on either end.)

While I'm here, and bored at work, I'll respond to the original rant.

But it irks me that so many adults here refuse to consider watching a good movie, just because an arbitrary agency like the MPAA decides to slap an R on it.

Has Cognoscente considered WHY people do this? Perhaps people have a different tolerance level than him/her? Or perhaps, while the MPAA is "arbitrary" maybe those people have determined that any R-rated movie will have content of which they disapprove and that they will select which PG-13 movies they watch on a case-by-case basis. Whether or not the MPAA is arbitrary really doesn't advance an argument for watching R-rated movies. It just shows they should come up with a better way to rate movies.

The crux of the issue here is that usually the (questionably legal) editing services butcher the movies.

As an side, ClearPlay seems to be doing pretty well of staying out of the way on legal issues. Since they're not actually changing the content of the copyrighted material - only making modifications to how it is played - they're pretty good. I know Cognoscente wasn't directly addressing that issue, but I figured I'd just mention it.

By chopping up the dialogue and direction, the movie becomes a patronizing, mocking parody of itself. Nuance and pacing is lost, music is stuttered. The artistic vision of the creators is lost.

This is a pretty sweeping statement. Furthermore, your argument assumes that editing WILL chop up dialogue and direction. While I agree that is true in some cases, I'm positive its not true in all cases and it is probably not true in most cases.

The adults watching it delude themselves into thinking that they're protecting themselves from negative content... but unless you have been ridiculously sheltered you know what's being bleeped out. The whole experience is an exercise in self-delusion.

Maybe it's not just language from which they are "protecting themselves." Maybe people are particularly concerned about nudity? Or, maybe want to delete entire scenes for appropriateness. (If I could edit Zoolander, I'd take out two scenes altogether. Nothing would be lost and I would feel more comfortable owning the movie.)

An anecdote: Last year my roommate brought home Braveheart to watch for the first time. Now, Braveheart is a wonderful movie, no question, with positive messages about sacrifice and struggle. I know I love it. It was a fiasco, because the edit was so atrocious that the plot became incomprehensible. Huge scenes were edited and motives were obscured. My poor roommate didn't even realize it when William Wallace's bride was murdered--thus eliminating ANY dramatic impact the next 15 minutes of the movie might have had. Braveheart deals with war, death, rape, revenge, conquest, betrayal, homosexuality, and mooning the British on the battlefield--all adult themes that are meant for mature minds. If you don't feel that you can deal with those, why even watch the movie in the first place? Why butcher an amazing movie?

Because they would enjoy seeing the movie, but don't want to see all of the "adult themes" that are included. Because maybe an amazing movie that is butchered would be more enjoyable to them than an amazing movie that has them staring at Scottish buttocks.

I've had lots of roommates that would rather watch any of a horde of horrible PG-13 movies than one of these works of art.

That doesn't address whether or not edited movies can be useful, enjoyable, etc. It just means you know a few people who have created a standard to filter out what content they view. I agree, they probably end up watching movies that are more inappropriate than the Silence of the Lambs. But that doesn't mean they SHOULD watch Silence of the Lambs.

And, sure, it boils down to personal choice. But I think they rob themselves of powerful works of art that make people better inside.

There are a few movies that I think I really came out being better. (Schindler's List among them.) But I am confident that ANY insight or improvement that a person could make by watching an R-rated movie, could come (and more powerfully so) by contemplating the sorrows to which people are exposed, learning about it, and seeking to relieve it in any way possible. They don't need to watch an R-rated movie to do it and they would definitely be a better person using the second method.

wired, who's seen a few R rated movies, doesn't look down on anyone who has, and hates it when people get upset at others for having a standard with which they disagree

[Cognoscente]

52568 - ClearPlay, or How I came to lose a lot of respect for Cognoscente.

Bahahahaaha!

Maybe we should define what it is we're arguing about. I see two categories: Amazing movies that should be watched regardless of rating, and merely entertaining movies. I honestly couldn't care less if you want to slice up Zoolander. It's a funny movie, and an entertaining movie, but not an artistically important one. I still refuse to watch it on principle, but that's my choice.

However, when you start with the "Schindler's List" echelon of modern classic film making, then you are butchering art and you should be ashamed of yourself. Citing "personal feelings" about the work is irrelevant. I could mount an enormous spoiler on the back of my subcompact because I like it better, but that doesn't stop me from being wrong and stupid for wanting it. And re: your Braveheart quote, "Because they would enjoy seeing the movie, but don't want to see all of the "adult themes" that are included." IT'S AN ADULT MOVIE. Do you think 13th century warfare is G-rated? Kids shouldn't watch it, and if you let your 8-year-old watch it you are a horrible parent. However, we are all (ostensibly) adults here. If you're not willing to watch mature themes, stick to children's films. Sorry, but I simply can't respect that opinion or "standard." Don't be surprised, either. I TOLD you I was a jerk about this.

[Tao]

They don't need to watch an R-rated movie to do it and they would definitely be a better person using the second method.

As I see it, this is the crux of the matter, and one of the weakest points to argue. The Laodicean neutrality bit comes into play most notably with those who choose some of the more extreme movies with the majority of the film's purpose edited out. Schindler's List is a great film, and the sex scenes are sadly not obscured in the least. It is almost as if the producers knew they'd be getting an R rating anyway for the maturity of the rest of the film, so why pull any punches? The problem with editing is that it cannot serve as retroactive production. In almost every case, the decision must be made: objectionable material, or purpose of scene? If you decide to cut those two sex scenes, and Oskar Schindler comes out seeming much more like Superman, the ideal American hero. In reality, he was far from it. He was a womanizing, greedy, self-centered so-and-so that capitalized on cheap labor. Without that understanding a large portion of the movie is lost. Ideally, we could edit it in such a manner that retains the effect of the scenes lost without the objectionable material, but that is not the case.

In my opinion, there are numerous films that have random, gratuitous scenes that seem there only to push the rating lower (ostensibly to boost sales, sadly). In all of these cases, I'd be more than fine editing. But in the end, the majority of films that have producers' mindsets along those lines, I tend to think we'd be fine not watching at all. (Zoolander? Just one edit, starting from after the end of the last preview and lasting 'till the credits. Nothing would be lost, save those 3-4 minutes of your life, watching names roll by and thinking "well....".)

As you can tell, I'm not much of a movie buff. Cognoscente is, and his movie-watching reflects it. It would come as no surprise to find that his motives for watching a movie differ from those who do not share his passion.

Braveheart deals with war, death, rape, revenge, conquest, betrayal, homosexuality, and mooning the British on the battlefield--all adult themes that are meant for mature minds. If you don't feel that you can deal with those, why even watch the movie in the first place? Why butcher an amazing movie?

Because they would enjoy seeing the movie, but don't want to see all of the "adult themes" that are included. Because maybe an amazing movie that is butchered would be more enjoyable to them than an amazing movie that has them staring at Scottish buttocks.

There are plenty of movies where "adult themes" are the only themes, and to edit them out would rid the movie of any point or purpose. (Gangs of New York comes to mind, edit that one for "adult themes" and I think you might be able to get a quick shot of a newspaperboy before the credits roll.) There are plenty of film enthusiasts that would be completely confused as to how anyone could find enjoyment in a movie devoid of its original intents. I think Cognoscente would fall into this group. Nothing wrong with that. Nor with being in the other camp. The difficulty, I think, is in the mindsets of those who tend to think that there is a law is set at R, (arbitrary as that is, as has been addressed) but if a movie is rated PG-13 or if it is an edited R, it's OK, regardless of plot, purpose, quality or content. It is far too easy to slip into hypocritical holier-than-thou by focusing too much on such a law and not on the purposes behind the council that gave rise to it.

[Laser Jock]

Like several people have pointed out, I think there's a bit of a disconnect here between movies as entertainment and movies as art. However, I think this has more to do with the viewer than with the specific movies themselves.

In other words, if someone wants to watch a movie just for the entertainment value, then of course they won't see a problem with editing it--even if that movie is widely viewed by others to be a very artistic film. (E.g., Schindler's List.)

If I watch Spiderman or even The Dark Knight, I'm doing so because I've heard they're good movies. I don't mind if a few scenes are cut out; even a film as dark and mature as The Dark Knight actually fared pretty well with ClearPlay, and I really enjoyed the psychological themes, among other things.

I've gone both ways, now: before my family tried out ClearPlay, we just didn't watch movies that we found objectionable. That was all the way up until I went on my mission. Since I've been back I've watched some movies that I'd never seen before because of their content, and I think that editing is a reasonable alternative. I'm no film critic, of course, and I'm happy with the compromise.

On the other hand, I've never even thought of trying to watch something like Braveheart or Schindler's List, and I probably never will, editing or no. As has already been pointed out, they are fairly serious movies with lots of mature content, and I just don't think they'd fare well.

I do think it's best to respect others' opinions on this kind of thing, too

[Cognoscente]

I do think it's best to respect others' opinions on this kind of thing, too

I don't agree with OR respect that sentiment, sir!

[Laser Jock]

I do think it's best to respect others' opinions on this kind of thing, too

I don't agree with OR respect that sentiment, sir!

Well, then, your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!

[Katya]

But it irks me that so many adults here refuse to consider watching a good movie, just because an arbitrary agency like the MPAA decides to slap an R on it.

Has Cognoscente considered WHY people do this? Perhaps people have a different tolerance level than him/her? Or perhaps, while the MPAA is "arbitrary" maybe those people have determined that any R-rated movie will have content of which they disapprove.

But what if an R-rated movie didn't include such content? One of my favorite films of all time is Lola Rennt. The first time I saw it was in a BYU German class, before it had been released in the U.S. When it was released here, it inexplicably garnered an R-rating, which surprised all of us that had seen the movie. (I think you can imagine that the German dept. wouldn't have approved of showing an unedited R-rated movie in class.)

. . . they will select which PG-13 movies they watch on a case-by-case basis.

If you can conceive of of -- *GASP* -- having to actually do research and use your own judgment in deciding whether or not to watch a PG-13 movie, why not apply the same standard to R-rated movies?

[medievalman]

I find it slightly disturbing to see many people in the world labeling something as art and then partaking/participating in/viewing/watching when we have been counciled not to do so. Justification is a slippery slope, and art is an amorphous and undefined medium that Satan could easily twist to further his goals.

With that said, do whatever you feel is right, but be careful.

[Quiet Lamb]

May I suggest Mac Mabry's introduction to his Reflections of Christ book. Stop by the bookstore and read it sometime-- I read it at Barnes and Noble the other day, and I find it highly applicable to this conversation and as an interesting perspective to art.

[Waldorf and Sauron]

I find it slightly disturbing to see many people in the world labeling something as art and then partaking/participating in/viewing/watching when we have been counciled not to do so. Justification is a slippery slope, and art is an amorphous and undefined medium that Satan could easily twist to further his goals.

Calling film "art" is far from simply being a label. It indicates a whole different way of thinking, realizing that what you see on the screen is a carefully constructed product with embedded messages and ideologies. To watch anything — <i> anything </i>— without this viewpoint, just accepting it as entertainment, you're being brainwashed. That doesn't mean you can't enjoy yourself, but it does mean you need to be sensitive to not only content but the messages, pernicious or uplifting, underneath that content. Viewing films as art is a completely different experience from watching them as entertainment; it has nothing to do with labels and everything to do with how you watch. It takes training and the ability to distance oneself and think critically. And I'll say it straight up: I think it's much more acceptable to watch an offensive film as art than to watch it as entertainment. That may sound snooty-pants and condescending or something, but I don't mean it that way, and I don't mean that an "enlightened" person is inoculated against everything bad. All I'm saying is there's a reason that the BYU film department doesn't show R-rated films to first-year students, and does screen some of them for students in higher-level classes.

So, yes, film is art. I think debating that is nonsense. But there is good art and bad art, uplifting and degrading art. Just because something is art doesn't justify partaking in it, and none of us has claimed such. But please don't forget that "R" ratings haven't actively been preached against by the brethren for years. Consider this counsel from the Strength of Youth pamphlet:

Movie ratings do not always accurately reflect offensive content.

and this counsel from Moroni 7:16:

For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil

Love,
Waldorf and Sauron

[medievalman]

I will completely agree that movie ratings do not always accurately reflect offensive content. However, it is my opinion that one of the reasons why the church has not come out against R-rated movies recently is simply due to the fact that that is not always a sufficient guideline. If the church were to have continued drawing the line at R-ratings then surely every movie with a "lesser" rating would be fine, right?

Indeed, every man is given the Spirit of Christ so that they may know good from evil, of course. Yet the commandment is not strictly to avoid sin, but to avoid temptation. When dancing close to lines that should not be crossed it becomes so much easier to rationalize just a little dabbling on the other side, even with the Spirit of Christ.

[bismark]

Indeed, every man is given the Spirit of Christ so that they may know good from evil, of course. Yet the commandment is not strictly to avoid sin, but to avoid temptation. When dancing close to lines that should not be crossed it becomes so much easier to rationalize just a little dabbling on the other side, even with the Spirit of Christ.

we have plenty of preachers already medievalman. since you are so new, you might as well just quit now because we don't wanna hear it.

In other words, if someone wants to watch a movie just for the entertainment value, then of course they won't see a problem with editing it--even if that movie is widely viewed by others to be a very artistic film. (E.g., Schindler's List.)

if someone finds schindler's list an "entertaining" movie, i think they have bigger problems than the ratings on the films they watch. i don't see how anyone can walk away from that movie without viewing world differently.

[Nanti-SARRMM]

I find it slightly disturbing to see many people in the world labeling something as art and then partaking/participating in/viewing/watching when we have been counciled not to do so. Justification is a slippery slope, and art is an amorphous and undefined medium that Satan could easily twist to further his goals.

With that said, do whatever you feel is right, but be careful.

Upon reading this, I'm suddenly reminded of the Simpson's episode with the Statue of David.

[medievalman]

we have plenty of preachers already medievalman. since you are so new, you might as well just quit now because we don't wanna hear it.

An interesting comment, one that I heard a few times on my mission. First off, amount of posts does not equal time spent on a message board or the 100 hour board. Secondly, does that even matter? Should we ignore new board writers until they have a certain number of responses under their belt?

So let’s turn this into something that might be practical. Art, what is it? How are we to determine what truly is art and what is something that we shouldn’t get involved in? How about explicit art forms? Are they considered art, should we or should we not view them? Why or why not? Where is the line drawn between art that we should view and art that we shouldn’t view?

When doing research into something to determine if it’s ok (in this specific case: certain movies) where should we do this research. How are we, as latter day saints, to know what is a source of information that will actually reflect the standards we should be living? Do we do what research we can, and trust that what we find discusses everything that we should be mindful of? Where is the line drawn? Is there even a line at all, or just gray areas?

[bismark]

An interesting comment, one that I heard a few times on my mission.

a poor analogy, one that i've heard too many times on this message board and elsewhere.

First off, amount of posts does not equal time spent on a message board or the 100 hour board. Secondly, does that even matter? Should we ignore new board writers until they have a certain number of responses under their belt?

i don't care if someone is brand new or if they have been around forever, if their only contribution to the discussion is "all of this debate and thought-out reasoning is wrong because my opinion is right and here is the scripture/prophetic quote/mormon myth to back me up," then i really don't think they deserve much respect.

So let’s turn this into something that might be practical...

sounds good. i am interested in the discussion to follow, thanks for the prompt.

[Katya]

When doing research into something to determine if it’s ok (in this specific case: certain movies) where should we do this research. How are we, as latter day saints, to know what is a source of information that will actually reflect the standards we should be living?

There are plenty of reviewers in the Wasatch Front who are mindful of LDS standards and include information in their reviews to guide that audience, plus there are websites such as Screen-It and Kids in Mind which give more detailed information on movie content than just MPAA ratings.

Do we do what research we can, and trust that what we find discusses everything that we should be mindful of?

If you're not sure, talk to friends who have seen the movie and who know your standards. Do more research until you feel comfortable with your conclusions.

Where is the line drawn? Is there even a line at all, or just gray areas?

That's up to your own behavior. If you make consistent decisions and pay attention to the fruits of those decisions, then yes, you'll be able to draw a clear line and get better and better at refining your judgment where edge cases are concerned.

The thing that baffles me is that many LDS people seem to be perfectly capable of conceiving of making a judgment call where some ratings are concerned, but are baffled at the concept of applying that same process to entertainment as a whole.

(Of course, there's a whole other mostly unspoken issue, here, in that some people think that something that's bad for one person is bad for everyone, and other people think that different things can have different effects on different people. LJ, I know you don't watch PG-13 movies. Do you think that nobody should watch them because they're inherently bad, or do you think that you shouldn't watch them because they have a negative influence on you, particularly?)