To Each Her/His Own (Movies)

So my last post might need a little explanation. As a Mormon, I frequently encounter the belief that people should not watch movies filled with sex, violence, swearing, etc. Many, many Mormons also believe that people should not watch movies that are rated R by the MPAA.

Personally I disagree with these beliefs. I believe films have to portray difficult, sometimes graphic content in order to make positive points. (Think of a film like Schindler's List, for example.) Not watching these movies, or editing out part's that the filmmaker obviously thought were important, isolates viewers and impedes intellectual and spiritual growth, in my opinion. Also, like many people, I believe the MPAA is a wildly corrupt institution.

But, in the end I don't really care what people do. There's a limited amount of time and some people like me chose to watch a lot of films, and other people chose to other things. To each her/his own.

But what annoys me is when people try to tell me A) I should not watch movies that I consider uplifting because they contain "bad parts," B) That it's better to watch edited versions of movies, C) It's bad to have graphic content in movies, D) that they love movies but don't watch R rated movies.

A) To each her/his own. Somewhat paradoxically, I know, I expect people to reciprocate that attitude. At least when it comes to things like movies.

B) Edited movies are still technically rated R, or whatever the MPAA assigned them. In other countries there is no "R" rating. A movie is the vision of a group of artists and to cut it up is disrespectful. It disrupts the movie. Blah, blah, blah. There are a million reasons that watching edited movies is bad. If you want to watch edited movies, I suppose that's you're right, but don't tell me to do the same. And don't tell other people to do the same without giving the other side of the argument a chance to voice their views.

C) Brigham Young, a once-prominent Mormon, once pointed out that the arts have to portray evil to show good. Fast forward to today, when a church leader recently said media should not "portray" anything AT ALL that is bad. Yikes. Obviously, that would mean ending all media production. I don't know what this leader was going for, but I wish people would consider what they're saying when the constantly quote stuff like this.

D) And finally, if you are a film buff, you have to watch the classics. Things like "The Godfather," and "Raging Bull." The best picture-winning "Midnight Cowboy," which is also on AFI's list of all-time greatest films, was even rated X! I don't care if people watch these films or not, but don't go around pretending to be into films and then say you're unwilling to watch these masterpieces.

It's probably worth mentioning that this post stems from an incident that occurred at a church meeting recently. Like usual, people were talking about the supposed decline in civilized values and how evil the media apparently is. I was playing angry birds.

But then, this guy started rambling on about how he saw the PG-13 version of "The King's Speech" and how great it was. The movie is good, but the PG-13 version cuts out some important stuff. The swearing in that movie has a purpose and is vital to the story, unlike so many movies (rated everything from G to PG-13) where the swearing is just put in for laughs, or to make the movie more "hard core." Cutting out those parts or editing over them (which the filmmakers expressly condemned in this case) dilutes the point (which is, of all things, charity). (Note, there is more cut out of the PG-13 version than some people realize.)

Anyway, this guy at church was annoying and, ultimately, talking moronically about things I love, study, and work hard to understand. It was frustrating and I just wanted to yell that we should all just be able to do whatever we think is best. But of course, as always, I didn't.

Teen Pregnancy and Choosing to Believe

A couple of years ago a friend and I started talking about teen pregnancy.  The conversation started out with this friend arguing in favor of teen pregnancy.  Of course I (and those with us) were initially very skeptical.  However, after a little discussion I began to see the many advantages to teen pregnancy.  In fact, before I knew it, I was actually one of the most ardent supporters of this controversial idea.

 

Before I get to the point of this story, let me explain the argument itself.  First, teen pregnancy as it exists today is indeed a tragic phenomenon that disrupts the lives of many teens.  But, if society were to reevaluate itself and radically change, teen pregnancy could actually increase the standard of living and help maintain America’s position in the world.  That would happen because as soon as teenagers were physically capable of having children, they would be encouraged to do so.  However, as soon as a couple had a child they could return to school for college or go directly into the work force.  They could also spend time traveling or exploring their interests, like many twenty-somethings do today.  While all this was going on the babies would be cared for simultaneously by multiple generations, who would all be living close by. Because a generation would only be about fifteen years, instead of thirty, there would actually be more people to care for kids.  Ultimately, this would also produce more workers, which would add to a strong economy and American wealth. 

 

There was more to the argument than that—we talked about this for days—but that was the gist of it.  I think the underlying assumption was that people should be as productive as possible, and that “adolescence” is an artificial stage in life where most people don’t contribute much.  This plan would eliminate that relative unproductiveness. 

 

Whether you’re convinced by this argument or not (and probably you are not), I bring it up to illustrate how we can convince ourselves that something is a really good idea, even if that idea is normally ridiculous or even quite repugnant.  Though the discussion was never quite serious, I found myself believing that, given a radical enough social paradigm shift, the idea could work.  In other words, I convinced myself to believe in this silly idea. 

 

Though I haven’t thought much about this idea since, the experience itself led me to ask hard questions about belief in general.  How often do we (or at least, I) allow lop-sided evidence to persuade us of outlandish things?  How often do we choose a particular set of values based on something completely external to those values?  For example, I remember when I first came to college and discovered that I was slightly more liberal in my politics than my peers.  Once I realized this, and once I was labeled a “liberal” by my friends, I also found that I liked feeling different.  I liked the style of being liberal.

 

As time has gone on and as I’ve studied more, I genuinely think I believe in ideas that align with the left side of the political spectrum (though I dislike political labels).  In fact, I find myself drifting farther left the more I know.  Still, I have to ask myself how genuine my beliefs really are.  Would I have come to the same conclusions if I first hadn’t initially been attracted to the aesthetics of the ideology?  Is there any way to adopt a set of values that doesn’t include, at least initially, a simple and visceral satisfaction with those values?  I don’t know, but it seems that just about everyone—and I’m a prime example of this—chooses to believe something and then goes about justifying and explaining that belief.  This can happen with hypothetical ideas about teen pregnancy, or it may be higher stakes ideas about politics, religion, social behavior, etc.  In the end, what do we believe and how deep do those beliefs go?  I think I am as earnest as anyone, but I have to wonder, how much can we trust ourselves?  What does it mean to be genuine?  How true are our truths, beliefs, and values?