Jesus
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not "perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.” (John 3:16-17)
Martin Buber
“In the relation to God, unconditional exclusiveness and unconditional inclusiveness are one. For those who enter into the absolute relationship, nothing particular retains any importance—neither things nor beings, neither earth nor heaven—but everything is included in the relationship. For entering into the pure relationship does not involve ignoring everything but seeing everything in the You, not renouncing the world but placing it upon its proper ground. Looking away from the world is no help toward God; staring at the world is no help either; but whoever beholds the world in him stands in his presences…” (from
I and Thou)
C.S. Lewis
“When I attempted a few minutes ago, to describe our spiritual longings, I was omitting one of their most curious characteristics. We usually notice it just as the moment of vision dies away, as the music ends, or as the landscape loses the celestial light… For a few minutes we have had the illusion of belonging to that world. Now we wake to find that it is no such thing. We have been mere spectators. Beauty has smiled, but not to welcome us; her face turned in our direction, but not to see us. We have not been accepted, welcomed, or taken into the dance. We may go when we please, we may stay if we can, no one cares. Now, a scientist may reply that since most of the things we call beautiful are inanimate it is not very surprising that they take no notice of us. That, of course, is true. It is not the physical objects that I am speaking of, but that indescribable Something of which they become for a moment the messengers. And part of the bitterness which mixes with the sweetness of that message is due to the fact that it so seldom seems to be a message intended for us, but rather something we have overheard. By bitterness I mean pain, not resentment. We should hardly dare to ask that any notice be taken of ourselves. But we pine. The sense that in the universe we are treated as strangers, the longing to be acknowledged, to meet with some response, the bridge some chasm that yawns between us and reality, is part of our inconsolable secret.” (from
The Weight of Glory)
Terrence Malick
Badlands (1972)
Days of Heaven (1978)
The Thin Red Line (1998)
The New World (2005)
Martin Heidegger
“Truth is the truth of Being. Beauty does not occur alongside and apart from this truth. When truth sets itself into the work, it appears. Appearance—as this being of truth in the work and as work—is beauty. Thus the beautiful belongs to the advent of truth, truth’s taking of its place. It does not exist merely relative to pleasure and purely as its object.” (from “The Origin of the Work of Art.”)
Saint Paul
“Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.” (I Corinthians 13:12)
Marshall McLuhan
“All media work us over completely. They are so pervasive in their personal, political, economic, aesthetic, psychological, moral, ethical, and social consequences that they leave no part of us untouched, unaffected, unaltered.” (from
The Medium is the Massage)
Sufjan Stevens
And in my best behavior
I am really just like him
Look beneath the floorboards
For the secrets I have hid
(from “John Wayne Gacy, Jr.”)
F. Scott Fitzgerald
“And as I sat there brooding on the old unknown world, I thought of Gatsby’s wonder when he first picked out the green light at the end of Daisy’s long dock. He had come a long way to this blue lawn, and his dream must have seemed so close that he could hardly fail to grasp it, He did not know that it was already behind him, somewhere back in that vast obscurity beyond the city, where the dark fields of the republic rolled on under the night.” (from
The Great Gatsby)
Yasujiro Ozu
Tokyo Story (1953)
George Steiner
“All representations, even the most abstract, infer a rendezvous with intelligibility or, at the least, with a strangeness attenuated, qualified by observance and willed form. Apprehension (the meeting with the other) signifies both fear and perception. The continuum between both, the modulation from one to the other, lie at the source of poetry and the arts.” (from
Real Presences)
Paul Tillich
“What is the nature of a being that is able to produce art? Man is finite. He is, as one could say, mixed of being and nonbeing. Once he was not. Now he is and some time he will not be. He is not by himself, but thrown into existence and he will be thrown out of existence and cease to be for himself. He is delivered to the flux of time which runs from the past to the future through the ever-moving point which is called the present. He is aware of the infinite. He is aware that he belongs to it. But he is also aware that he is excluded from it… Out of the anxiety, and the double awareness that we are finite and that we belong to infinity from which we are excluded, the urge arises to express the essential unity of that which we are in symbols which are religious and artistic.” (from
On Art and Architecture)
Dorothy Sayers
“Poets have, indeed, often communicated in their own mode of expression truths identical with the theologians’ truths; but just because of the difference in the modes of expression, we often fail to see the identity of the statements.” (from
The Mind of the Maker)
Over the Rhine
What a beautiful piece of heartache this has all turned out to be.
Lord knows we've learned the hard way all about healthy apathy.
And I use these words pretty loosely.
There's so much more to life than words.
(from “Latter Days”)
Soren Kierkegaard
“He will grant thee a hiding place within Him, and once hidden in Him he will hide thy sins. For He is the friend of sinners... He does not merely stand still, open His arms and say, 'Come hither'; no, he stands there and waits, as the father of the lost son waited, rather He does not stand and wait, he goes forth to seek, as the shepherd sought the lost sheep, as the woman sought the lost coin. He goes--yet no, he has gone, but infinitely farther than any shepherd or any woman, He went, in sooth, the infinitely long way from being God to becoming man, and that way He went in search of sinners.” (from
Training in Christianity)
Richard Linklater
Before Sunrise (1995)
Waking Life (2001)
Before Sunset (2004)
George MacDonald
“In what belongs to the deeper meanings of nature and her mediation between us and God, the appearances of nature are the truths of nature, far deeper than any scientific discoveries in and concerning them. The show of things is that for which God cares most, for their show is the face of far deeper things than they; we see in them, in a distant way, as in a glass darkly, the face of the unseen. It is through their show, not through their analysis, that we enter into their deepest truths. What they say to the childlike soul is the truest thing to be gathered of them.” (from
The Voice of Job)
Emily Dickinson
The Bustle in a House
The Morning after Death
Is solemnest of industries
Enacted opon Earth –
The Sweeping up the Heart
And putting Love away
We shall not want to use again
Until Eternity
John Steinbeck
“In uncertainty I am certain that underneath their topmost layers of frailty men want to be good and want to be loved. Indeed, most of their vices are attempted short cuts to love. When a man comes to die, no matter what his talents and influence and genius, if he dies unloved his life must be a failure to him and his dying a cold horror.” (from
East of Eden)
Bob Dylan
He woke up, the room was bare
He didn't see her anywhere.
He told himself he didn't care,
pushed the window open wide,
Felt an emptiness inside
to which he just could not relate
Brought on by a simple twist of fate.
(from “Simple Twist of Fate”)
Walker Percy
“What is the malaise? You ask. The malaise is the pain of loss. The world is lost to you, the world and the people in it, and there remains only you and the world and you no more able to be in the world than Banquo’s ghost.” (from
The Moviegoer)
Sofia Coppola
Virgin Suicides (2000)
Lost in Translation (2003)
Marie Antoinette (2006)
Kathleen Norris
“Church is to be participated in and not consumed. The point is not what one gets out of it, but the worship of God; the service takes place both because of and despite the needs, strengths, and frailties of the people present. How else could it be?” (from
Dakota)
Marilynne Robinson
“Whenever I think of Edward, I think of playing catch in a hot street and that wonderful weariness of the arms. I think of leaping after a high throw and that wonderful collaboration of the whole body with itself and that wonderful certainty and amazement when you know the glove is just where it should be. Oh, I will miss the world!” (from
Gilead)
N.T. Wright
“Preaching the gospel means announcing Jesus as Lord of the world; and, unless we are prepared to contradict ourselves with every breath we take, we cannot make that announcement without seeking to bring that lordship to bear over every aspect of the world.” (from
What Saint Paul Really Said).
David Bazan
It's weird to think of all the things
That have not been keeping up with the times
It's ten o' clock the sun is down
Just begun to set the western hills on fire
I hear that you don't change
How do you expect to keep up with the trends
You won't survive the information age
Unless you plan to change the truth to accommodate the brilliance of man
The brilliance of man
(from “Letter From a Concerned Follower”)
G.K. Chesterton
“Gazing at some detail like a bird or a cloud, we can all ignore its awful blue background; we can neglect the sky; and precisely because it bears down upon us with an annihilating force it is felt as nothing. A thing of this kind can only be an impression and a rather subtle impression; but to me it is a very strong impression made by pagan literature and religion. I repeat that in our special sacramental sense there is, of course, the absence of the presence of God. But there is in a very real sense the presence of the absence of God. We feel it in the unfathomable sadness of pagan poetry; for I doubt if there was ever in all the marvelous manhood of antiquity a man who was happy as St. Francis was happy.” (from
The Everlasting Man)
Gus Van Sant
Elephant (2003)
Paranoid Park (2008)
Solomon
"I have seen the task which God has given the sons of men with which to occupy themselves. He has made everything appropriate in its time. He has also set eternity in their heart, yet so that man will not find out the work which God has done from the beginning even to the end. I know that there is nothing better for them than to rejoice and to do good in one's lifetime; moreover, that every man who eats and drinks sees good in all his labor--it is the gift of God. I know that everything God does will remain forever; there is nothing to add to it and there is nothing to take from it, for God has so worked that men should fear Him. That which is has been already and that which will be has already been, for God seeks what has passed by." (Ecclesiastes 3:10-15).
Jack Kerouac
“What is that feeling when you’re driving away from people and they recede on the plain till you see their specks dispersing?—it’s the too-huge world vaulting us, and it’s good bye. But we lean forward to the next crazy venture beneath the skies.” (from
On the Road)
St. Augustine
"Thou hast made us for Thyself, O Lord, and our hearts are restless until they find their rest in Thee..."
Martin Luther
“Unless I am convinced by proofs from Scriptures or by plain and clear reasons and arguments, I can and will not retract, for it is neither safe nor wise to do anything against conscience. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me. Amen."
Jean-Pierre and Luc Dardenne
The Son (2002)
The Child (2005)
It’s a shame you didn’t finish The Dreamers– it’s one of my favorite films.
There definatly is a line, but I believe it is different with each movie. I went to see Antichrist and knew when the graphic moments were coming and yes I closed my eyes. In the end I constantly debate Antichrist because it was so well made and had such spiritual depths. Yet Von Trier creates such power with his shots that he dosen’t need to revert to nastiness for his power. I’m glad I watched it and that I closed my eyes. I believe one needs to know their own personal limits and what films like Salo and Irreversible are trying to do and whether they really need to be expirianced or not. I’ve never walked out of a film, but I did fast foward the rape scene in Irreversible(a film which I hate) and have chosen not to watch Salo. As always great post with great questions.
It’s hard to say where I draw the line. If it’s disturbing scene after disturbing scene after disturbing song with no break, I’m turned off. Examples of which include “American History X” and “Monster’s Ball.” However, if a film is dark but with a touch of humor, like “Blue Velvet,” I can stomach it.
Part of me wants to see “Antichrist” just to see what the fuss is about. Plus Willem Dafoe is one of my all-time favorite actors.
Okay, after read a synopsis of “Antichrist” on Wikipedia, I definitely do NOT want to see it! I’ll have to get my Willem DaFoe fix someplace else.
I remember renting The Piano teacher when I was about 20, and wanting to turn it off, but I didn’t. I’m actually glad I finished it, because though I’ve forgotten most of the movie, the bizarre final scene (shot?) has remained in my mind ever since. She slowly descends a staircase, casually pulls a small knife out of her purse and stabs herself in the shoulder, then calmly returns the knife to her purse, having never stopped walking.
Two recent examples of potentially incredible films that I simply could not finish: “The Devil Came on Horseback” and “Gomorrah” Both were so bleak, so filled with stark depravity, that I just couldn’t handle it any more.
Yet “The Road” was my favorite film of 2009, and I’d name other bleak, violent, and sin-exposing films as my favorites–”There Will Be Blood” and “No Country for Old Men,” to name a few.
So I’m unsure. It feels inconsistent. There is a line, but it appears to be different from film to film for me (though I do dialogue with my wife before and after viewing a potentially sketchy film). Might “the line” have to do with the filmmakers’ intentions or artistic portrayal of the content in question?
I definitely think the line does have to do with the filmmakers intentions and the artistry with which the offensive content is treated. On the latter point, for example, I’d suggest that directors like Tarantino or Scorsese can make beautiful art out of brutal violence (stylized or literal) while other directors (the torture porn folks) are more akin to Thomas Kinkade in their approach to visualizing violence (i.e. excessively surface and exploitative).
There are a few things that I attempt to keep in mind when determining whether or not a film is “too disturbing to sit through”.
First, this will ultimately be a matter of conscience, personality, and conviction, particularly for Christians, and nothing can ever change that. We all have different psychological makeups, and that affects what we can or can’t handle. But above that, we all have different levels of conviction: what might be stumblingblock for one person might be perfectly fine for someone else. As a result, we need to exercise grace and charity — especially if and when we feel the need to correct or challenge someone’s assessment of a movie.
And art being subjective, we’re always going to see different things in the same piece. For example, I’ve had people criticize Pulp Fiction for being so dark and violent (and understandably so). And yet, Pulp Fiction is one of my favorite movies, and that’s largely because of the themes of grace and redemption that wind their way throughout the film (most obviously in the diner scene at the very end). Admittedly, some people might not see those themes because they can’t get past the language, violence, etc. But that’s where the need for gracious discussion and debate comes into play.
That being said, I’ve found a few things to be very helpful.
I ask if the film is being truthful about humanity, sin, and depravity. If a film shows an adulterous relationship in graphic detail, then how the film handles said relationship determines, to a certain extent, whether I think the film crosses the line, if it’s irredeemable, etc. Does the film celebrate the adultery as a good thing, or does it ultimately show the toll and damage that such a relationship can cause? (This, of course, assumes that I don’t have a particular conviction concerning graphic sexual content, that such content isn’t a stumblingblock for me.)
To use a film mentioned above, I found American History X to be very powerful and moving. I certainly found it disturbing and hard to watch in places, but I also thought it was an honest depiction of the wages of the sins of racism and bigotry, and a powerful exploration of how those things come to be and are spread through subsequent generations. So, to my mind, the film was quite truthful about humanity, sin, and depravity, and therefore didn’t cross the line for me — though, as I said, it was certainly hard to watch in places, and ultimately, I’m glad that it was.
For what it’s worth, this is why I have such a problem with the so-called “torture porn” films (e.g., Hostel). Such films revel in gore and debauchery for their own sake; they’re interested in crossing the line simply for the sake of doing so, and not to make any point or convey any message.
Contrast that to, say, Kinji Fukasaku’s Battle Royale, an incredibly violent and twisted film which revolves around junior high students forced to kill eachother. And the movie doesn’t shy away from the bloodshed. But the film is clearly intended to be a satire of a culture which marginalizes and exploits their youth.
That becomes even more apparent if you read Fukasaku’s reasons behind the film, as well as the incidents in his own life that led him to making the film. This is why I also find it important to know and understand the the filmmakers’ intent.
I’ve seen so many reviews that are completely dismissive of the filmmakers’ thoughts and ideas behind the film, or don’t even take them into account. And yet, I’ve found that they can shed some valuable insight and can even make certain things “palatable” because I understand why the filmmaker included that particular scene or content. That might not ultimately save the film for me — I might find the filmmakers’ reasons weak and unsupported by the final film — but I think it’s only fair to give them their say, so to speak.
Very well-stated Joel. I agree with you about the filmmakers’ intentions and how important they are in our assessment of hard-to-watch content. But I can see where people would contest that–arguing that explicit content is explicit content. Its effect on the spectator doesn’t change depending on the “whys,” which are subtextual and hidden where the film itself is visible and viscerally experienced. A beheading is a beheading. Nudity is nudity. Who cares what the filmmaker was “trying to say?” I’m not agreeing with this approach (evocative of New Criticism), because as you probably know I’m all about authorial intention in the way I appreciate art… but in my more phenomenological moments I definitely understand the merits of such an argument.
Pingback: Movies too DIsturbing to Sit Through « The Green Leaf Blog
I walked out on Rob Zombie’s House of a Thousand Corpses and Tom Green’s Freddie Got Fingered. Both my college roommates idea of quality cinematic entertainment.
Movies choices should be up to a Bible saturated conscience. There are definitely limits, but there is also freedom and I am reticent to tell someone else what to watch and what to avoid (unless they are part of the flock I am responsible for shepherding).
I would say, first, can you watch the movie to the glory of God (1 Corinthians 10:30-31)? That is a question we should ask about anything. A movie reviewer might be able to answer yes while me sitting by myself in the dark might not. I would ask, “Is it good, is it beautiful and is it true,” and I also tend to avoid any explicit sexual content because, well, I’m a man and I want to guard my eyes and heart.
Brett, this is an amazing articulation of the great balance beam we have to walk. Great comment by Jason as well. Thanks guys for making me think about my own convictions and my love for storytelling.
“Why would you even attempt to watch these films?
Why subject yourself to such debased filth?”
Some of the above comments cut so deep that I want to first say thanks for the eye-openers.
I’m going to try here to comment on the social aspect. If there is a film about it, or more generally if there is art about something, then the subject matter is being thought about in some way. That means either those kinds of acts or those kinds of thoughts are part of our society. There will always be monsters (mentally, physically, etc). We need to know how to face them.
(Not to turn this too religious-y, but…)Why do you think ‘the committee’ chose Dec. 25 to be the day to celebrate the birth of Jesus? A mote of redemption, or at least a little light offered somehow in the darkest of times, is needed to keep us focused on the task of helping others. Resting in a “we’re comfy” sort of way while hand-waving aside someone else’s monsters is a terrible indulgence.
Facing the monsters together and opening the conversation will mean one less place for the monsters to hide.
Like you, I couldn’t finish The Dreamers. I think the only other movie I couldn’t finish was The Heart is Deceitful Above All Things. Sexual violence towards minors is extremely difficult to stomach for me, and I thought it crossed the line. I did finish Ma Mere, but I regretted it as soon as the credits rolled – I thought it was exploitive, nihilistic, and irredeemable.
I don’t think there is a line, except perhaps with explicit sexual content because it incites lust and tempts the actors to act promiscuously. I think films simply should not have explicit sex, but that as a viewer we can’t necessarily demand purity.
Anything else is simply a matter of taste and tends to serve as a reflection of the audience’s soul.
Drew: “I don’t think there is a line, except perhaps with explicit sexual content because it incites lust and tempts the actors to act promiscuously.”
Does not action in films sensationalize violence to the point where films become the basis of childhood games of “attack the evil Jedi” and “bomber jet to Moscow?” Are not the actors themselves at risk of enjoying the part too much in terms of thrill much like an actor might enjoy a sex scene for its sensuality?
Anthony raises a good point. Violence can be just as objectifying and pornographic as sexual content. It might not incite someone to lust per se, but if it causes someone — the actor, the viewer, or whomever — to stumble in terms of how they objectify and view other human beings, isn’t that as problematic?
What’s more, it’s not inconceivable that there are movies that don’t contain any explicit content whatsoever, and yet could still be deemed “too disturbing to sit through” due to the themes and perspectives that they espouse or condone.
I don’t really think he raises a good point at all, because I don’t think there’s anything intrinsically wrong with violence — or with dwelling on the topic of violence. The Bible, for example, has tons of action and gore but essentially no explicit sex.
Likewise, a movie might be extremely disturbing, but that has nothing to do with morality in my mind.
Regarding themes that a movie not only describes but actually *condones*, I agree that there could be a line there. For example, I would not particularly want to subsidize a film that promoted communism, and arguably participating in such evil propaganda might be immoral. I know many people refused to watch The Davinci Code or The Golden Compass for those types of reasons. When I said there was no line, I was actually thinking about the graphics of the movie and not about the types of morals it advocates. (But as with sex, it’s hard to ask for ideological purity from Hollywood.)
@Drew: You don’t consider “The Song of Solomon” to be sexually explicit? Regardless of whether you see it primarily as a metaphor for God’s relationship with His people, it’s pretty racy in places, especially in the original language.
And let’s not forget about Lot and his daughters, Ruth and Boaz, or the 19th chapter of Judges. There’s certainly a fair amount of sexually explicit content in the Bible (it’s just often been “cleaned up” when translated).
Furthermore, just because there’s lots of “action and gore” in the Bible, it doesn’t automatically follow that violence is “better” or more “acceptable” than sex. It’s all in the context. For example, how much of that “action and gore” was condoned by God, and how much of it was clearly sinful and perpetrated against His will?
Speaking as a sexual being created by God, I’m going to have to speak up and wonder why explicit sexuality is inherently wrong. Exploitive depictions of humanity is certainly wrong, be it dehumanizing violence, lascivious sexuality, or demeaning depictions of the underprivileged, but I don’t understand why simple artistic depiction of any human action, no matter how base or depraved, is to be avoided. As Jason observes, there’s plenty of sinfulness (sexual in nature, violent in nature, economic in nature) portrayed in Holy Scripture, and mere depiction is not equal to endorsement.
Very simple Tim. We were created to be sexually intimate with one other person in our lives. Watching explicit behavior is becoming a part of it (the observer). I would imagine this is because the Lord realizes how easily our human passions can become inflamed through our visual predilections (i.e. David gazing on Bathsheba leading to one of his only moral stumbles).
Luke,
David had eight wives. And in any case, I simply don’t understand why viewing ‘explicit behavior’ implicates me in such behavior any more than reading about it in the Bible. If lust is sinful (and I believe it is), then it must also be willful; my ‘human passions’ becoming ‘inflamed’ is a function of my own moral choice rather than a simple consequence of eyeballs and flesh.
The fact that sinful and uncondoned violence composes part of the perfect Word of God actually proves my point. We are commanded to study those stories, which means that dwelling on violent plots is not sinful. If the plot presents a moral message, the sinful violence actually glorifies God. E.g., Darth Vader exhibits a disturbing persona and even kills some of his own people, but Star Wars as a whole presents a moral message (the pantheism and witchcraft aside).
I think the whole idea that thinking about violence should be avoided is actually New Agey morality rather than Christian. I can understand why young children or even squeemish adults might avoid violent films, but their squeemishness is not a virtue. Squeemishness is morally neutral. E.g., consider someone who is so squeemish that he cannot bear to think about
The stories about rape in the Bible were disturbing, but not “explicit” in the way that pornography or a romance novel would be. (Arguably, the story about Ham and Noah involved rape, but it’s so subtle that it’s actually hard for us even to tell for sure!)
The Song of Solomon is racy, but it’s not explicit either. I don’t morally object to raciness or even scenes involving rape. I only object to pornography and, as you mentioned, films which *advocate* sexual immorality (which includes most films these days, as society no longer believes in marriage).
To clarify with a couple examples:
1. In my view, a disturbing movie about a serial killer would be morally neutral or possibly even morally good, depending on how the plot is developed and what ideals are glorified. On the other hand, a movie which advocates or condones murder would be immoral.
2. In my view, a disturbing movie about a philanderer would be morally neutral or perhaps even morally good. On the other hand, a movie which advocates or condones promiscuity would be immoral, as would any pornographic film. And even if a film is not pornographic, I don’t particularly think actors should be putting their genitals on the screen — mainly for their own sake.
Drew,
If you are going to claim that the sexuality in Scripture isn’t ‘explicit,’ then I’d point out that neither is the violence.
The Bible talks about slitting people’s throats and driving spikes through temples and cutting off dead enemies’ heads and tearing unborn children out of wombs.
“The Bible talks about slitting people’s throats and driving spikes through temples and cutting off dead enemies’ heads and tearing unborn children out of wombs.”
For what it’s worth, I remember a different sort of “driving” of an “spear” from reading a translation of the Song of Solomon which referred to the “plunging of his penis” into her body.
“I think the whole idea that thinking about violence should be avoided is actually New Agey morality rather than Christian.”
Morality is morality. There are not different categories of morality. Just as there is no such thing as Christian art. All art is inherently Christian.
More to the point, I’m not sure who said that thinking about violence should be avoided, but I for one feel that celebrations of violence should be avoided. Such celebrations have been seen in many of blockbuster in recent years such as Inglorious Bastards and The Dark Knight; the first attempts to render genocide as a comedy and the latter suspends audience’s imaginations on the magnificence of terrorism and vigilantism.
Drew – I’m afraid your view of violence/sexuality in the Bible is a little one-sided. As Jason says, it’s all about the context in which stories appear, as well as the overall message of Scripture. I think you and I would both agree that senseless killing and sexual promiscuity for its own sake are wrong, according to Scripture, correct? Because of this, it shouldn’t matter what stories the Bible presents to us to observe – what matters is the message behind the stories and the overall moral message that we are to take away from it.
And even though the Bible may not go into graphic detail about what sexual organs went exactly where in which scene, the fact remains that the Bible is absolutely chock-full of sexual situations, and some that aren’t even necessarily about sex on the surface. Take, for example, the story of Ruth and Boaz. In the scene where Ruth goes to Boaz on the threshing floor and wakes him up in the middle of the night, a casual reader might only observe that she lay at his feet and he woke up suddenly. But when you read into the context of the story, knowing that on the threshing floor men usually drank heavily and went to bed more than drunk, and knowing that in the original Hebrew “feet” is actually “appendage,” and knowing that scholars and scribes in those days weren’t too keen on just coming out and saying “penis,” the meaning becomes even more clear: Ruth came to Boaz on the threshing floor and performed sexually explicit acts on him which caused him to awake suddenly. My point in telling this story is this: not only do you have to take the context of the story itself, you have to take into context when it was written, why it was written, and what it originally said, not just the fact that it seems vanilla and harmless on the outside.
And also, yes, the Bible does talk about slitting people’s throats and the like, but not in an explicit way. It doesn’t go into detail about what exactly what kinds of weapons are used and how much blood flowed and all that sort of things, like many graphically violent movies do these days. Writing is very different from a visual medium like film, and you have to treat it as such. Saying “his throat was slit” and then showing a graphic representation of somebody’s throat being slit are NOT one and the same. Because of this, and because we know that senseless killing is wrong and each individual life is to be valued (according to Jesus! :-)), we should react to depictions of such violence on film just the same as we would react to two people graphically having sex. Movies like 2012 that glorify in violence and destruction are negating the value of human life for the sake of spectacle, and how is this any more okay than seeing an actress’s breasts being fondled by an actor? Of course, when it comes to sexuality and violence, as has been stated many times before in these comments, if you’re the kind of person for whom movies about sex are a stumbling block, it is your duty not to watch them and decide which movies are okay or not okay for you to watch.
I think you’re right in saying that dwelling on violence or violent stories is not necessarily wrong, but I think sexuality should be accorded the same leniency. We are creatures of God, beautiful sexual creatures and there is nothing inherently more wrong about watching a sex scene then there is a killing scene. Like you said, it all depends on the context.
While I don’t whole-heartedly agree with Drew’s premise, I do have to disagree with your last statement Brandon:
We are creatures of God, beautiful sexual creatures and there is nothing inherently more wrong about watching a sex scene then there is a killing scene.
I believe there is actually something inherently more immoral about watching a sex scene than a killing scene. Frequently in the Bible, observation of violence is used as a powerful warning and teaching tool by God, whether it is through corporate punishment or retribution from enemies for disobedience. I cannot think of a single example of public viewing of sexual acts being promoted or even condoned. Not that this gives explicit violence a pass at all, but I can’t imagine a single circumstance where the viewing of an explicit sex scene could be beneficial to a Christian, while I can think of a few circumstances where scenes of violence could be beneficial.
I think I both disagree and agree with your statement, Luke. I agree with you in the sense that sex is a lot more personal and spiritual than violence. It is the main reason, I believe, why most sex scenes in movies come off as awkward and unnecessary – because sex is such a personal thing, any attempt to render it in a visual sense cannot, by definition, work. But on the other hand, I think that, handled in the right way, some sex scenes can be beautiful and edifying. Take, for example, A History of Violence, which contains two sex scenes, one intimately personal and another one that is brutal and horrifying. Within the context of the story, the intimacy and innocence of the first scene serves as a necessary contrast to the brutality of the second and ties in to the themes of the haunting power of violence and bad deeds and the chance for, possibly, redemption to be found in the end. The scenes are perfectly filmed but are definitely not for just any audience, and I’d argue that they’re necessary in order to be edified/educated in light of the message of the movie as a whole.
I do have a question about your wording. You say,
“I can’t imagine a single circumstance where the viewing of an explicit sex scene could be beneficial to a Christian”
How explicit are we talking here? Full on penetration, or simple nudity? And I think to take the violent equivalent of penetration, e.g. something along the lines of “Hostel,” explicit violence per se wouldn’t have any redeeming value either.
Well Brandon, explicit means explicit I think. It’s hard for me to think of a scene anywhere in the spectrum of what you have asked (nudity to penetration) where a Christian would find edification or benefit. I’m not a Puritan but I do believe that our sensibilities and our moral bulwarks can be eroded over time, until we are practically indistinguishable from the unsaved.
Is good art important? Absolutely. It communicates and shares timeless truths about our world and our souls. But for the Christian, art should never interfere with our walk with Christ, right? Our standards are clear: look on in lust and you’ve committed adultery, harbor hate in your heart and you’ve committed murder. Pretty clear line there, I think.
Luke, again, I don’t think it’s correct to equate ‘viewing nudity’ with ‘looking on in lust.’ Am I to understand that your position is that the great works of Christian artists of the Renaissance are incapable of spiritual edification?
If, in your view, “Explicit is explicit,” Luke, then by whose standards are you abiding, exactly? For some people, yes, they are unable to look at a naked woman and not feel feelings of lust. For those people, they should not watch a movie with a naked woman in it. But I really don’t see how you can possibly be insinuating that any kind of viewing of nudity is a sin and a bad idea.
Consider this. You say you’re not a Puritan, but back in the day if a woman showed any ankle or wrist in the way she dressed it was considered highly inappropriate, even “obscene.” Nowadays woman wear shorts, skirts, and, horrors, T-shirts! Oh how our society has degraded!
Not really, and since you said you’re not a Puritan I doubt that you think a woman wearing a T-shirt is any kind of sin at all. But for some people, “nudity” would have meant if you could see any skin down past a woman’s knees.
And then, there’s the almost complete opposite.
In certain parts of Africa in villages and towns it is not all uncommon to see topless woman walking around, or a man. For these people this is not an opportunity for lust – it’s just their way of life. It’s hot over there, why not walk around without a shirt? And you’re telling me that this form of nudity automatically makes it lustful? I really don’t think you are, but your statements so far seem to indicate you haven’t taken into account the myriad of different cultures and styles of life that exist on this planet.
Tim is spot on, I think. There’s no place whatsoever in the Bible that should automatically equate “viewing nudity” with “looking on in lust.” Because of this, your comment of “explicit is explicit” seems insufficient.
Somehow you two have set up straw men in this discussion and are taking turns beating them. Let’s cut through some of this and get back to where our disagreement began. I said that “I can’t imagine a single circumstance where the viewing of an explicit sex scene could be beneficial to a Christian”. Brandon since your argument is beginning to slip entirely into relativism, let’s bring the discussion back to firm footing. I thought that the definition of explicit was well.. explicit, but I was wrong. According to Dictionary.com explicit = “fully and clearly expressed or demonstrated; leaving nothing merely implied; unequivocal”. So (translated) what I said was that I can’t imagine a single circumstance where the viewing of a (fully and clearly expressed) sex scene would be beneficial to a Christian. If you disagree with my statement, then please provide a circumstance where this type of viewing would be beneficial to a Christian.
There is no need to quibble about the evolution of social decorum, we aren’t speaking about that. Tim, to equate a Renaissance painting done by a Christian artist containing nudity with explicit sex scenes in current films is specious. I don’t remember any of the Christian greats painting sex scenes, maybe you can refresh my memory. You are both correct that looking at nudity does not provoke lust in all people, I never said that it did (straw man). What I said was that our guidelines are very clear and they are. If we do find ourselves lusting after a nude image, according to the Lord we have committed adultery. Again, am I incorrect?
Straw men aside, where have I spoken incorrectly? What kind of edification and benefit can a Christian expect to receive from watching an unequivocal sex scene? We’ve already delineated what the potential negative ramifications are, what are the positive? And do they outweigh the risk of potentially committing adultery in the Lord’s sight?
Luke, I think you’re either forgetting what you wrote earlier or you are shifting the goal posts. I’m responding to your statement that ‘[i]t’s hard for me to think of a scene anywhere in the spectrum of what you have asked (nudity to penetration) where a Christian would find edification or benefit’ (emphasis mine). You seemed to pretty clearly state that nothing remotely sexual, even, apparently, including non-sexual nudity, obviated edification. If that isn’t what you meant to write, I understand, but I’m not attacking strawmen.
I agree with Tim. And I originally wrote a much longer and more well-thought comment but my computer died and I lost it, so here are the bullet points.
-When you say “unequivocal sex scene” – what do you mean by unequivocal? Do you mean in the sense that we know it’s a sex scene simply by the context of the movie, or do you mean that know it’s a sex scene because we literally see penetration?
-I understand your concern about potentially committing adultery when you watch a movie, and it’s a valid one, but because we are all such different people, it’s a concern that needs to be taken on a person-by-person basis and not, IMHO, on a “all unequivocal sex scenes are bad” basis. (Depending on what you mean by unequivocal.)
-I thought we’d already been over what the positive ramifications could be. I have seen many movies were sex/and or nudity illuminated and was instrumental to the message of the movie, and spoke truth and beauty about life and the human race. I think it’s safe to say that I can always be edified by watching beauty and truth, whatever form it may take.
Tim, I’m sorry for the confusion. I’m really not shifting my goalposts. Since I began by speaking about explicit sex scenes, I assumed that the use of “scenes” would substitute for the whole phrase that I started with. Therefore I am speaking of sexual scenes in regards to that spectrum and I stand by my comment.
Brandon, in answer to your first point: yes. I believe that both of those scenes are unequivocally sex scenes.
-In regards to your second point, I can see what you are saying and I’m not trying to provide a blanket condemnation for explicit sex scenes. I am positing that inherent in every explicit sex scene is the potential for temptation/adulterous thoughts/etc. I am of the belief that situations rife with temptation should be handled as one would handle radioactive material: gingerly and with trepidation.
- As far as your third point, I don’t completely agree with you. You state that you can “always be edified by watching beauty and truth, whatever form they take” and I don’t find this strictly to be true. Please remember that the Enemy often appeals to the eye and beauty to tempt; and that Truth, while essential, can often be crippling and devastating.
I think you’re right in saying that dwelling on violence or violent stories is not necessarily wrong, but I think sexuality should be accorded the same leniency. We are creatures of God, beautiful sexual creatures and there is nothing inherently more wrong about watching a sex scene then there is a killing scene. Like you said, it all depends on the context.
This.
I’m a fellow conversantlife blogger, and saw this post and thought it was such a fascinating question. I stumbled over here thinking maybe there would be a better discussion at your personal blog, and low and behold, here it is. Love it.
This is a fascinating question. I think for me, it comes down to purpose. If the movie (or tv show for that matter) presents violence or sexuality in a way that moves the plot along, furthers the character development, or reveals something we need to know, then I have a bit more tolerance. (For me, Brokeback Mountain would be an example of that). Whereas, sometimes I feel like I am watching violence or sex that is graphic just for the sake of being graphic (I felt this way watching Kill Bill, though I know others thought it to be artful).
Personally, I have a hard time with movies that show graphic scenes between an adult and a minor. It is unsettling because regardless of how objective the viewer may try to be, visual stimulation is visual stimulation. Even though I loved these movies and thought they explored important themes, I was uncomfortable with both American Beauty and Towelhead for this reason.
I also loved Six Feet Under but felt that there was a lot of sex for the sake of sex. Was thankful to TBS for cleaning it up for me!