When PC Turns PG
There's a megachurch in Georgia - I'm assuming it's a megachurch because they make movies - called Sherwood Baptist. They've got a film coming out in the fall called "Facing The Giants."
I've watched the preview and it appears Hollywood will be able to keep a firm grip on the Oscar statuettes. I don't envision there being a groundswell among the voting members of the academy to toss any Oscars toward Atlanta. Nonetheless, it seems like the type of movie that almost everyone enjoys, albeit a bit predictable: a football team down on its luck, a coach down on his luck, a coach's marriage down on its luck, everything riding on the upcoming season. Sound familiar? Okay, so we could probably all sit down and knock out a script for this one.
The interesting thing is this particular movie earned a PG rating. That's no real biggie to me. I've never really understood movie ratings and when I've deluded myself into thinking I finally did, the line would shift. What was PG when I was a kid certainly isn't PG today.
I remember one of my first "solo" outings with two of our kids, Lisa and Joey, was to a matinee movie. Simple, harmless...buy 'em some overpriced food...sit 'em down...watch the movie - no real parenting required. At the time, Joey was a huge fan of Jim Carrey and I - being either a new step-parent or a soon to be step-parent - didn't give it a thought when I took the kids to see "Ace Ventura - Pet Detective." It sounded cute, it had Jim Carrey...I didn't know the movie was PG-13...until it started. It was so full of double entendre, crude humor, blatant sexual references that I wanted to crawl under my chair. The kids? They didn't notice that stuff...they saw Jim Carrey acting goofy and they loved it, although they wondered why I was squirming around so much.
I learned a lesson. What looks cute can be crude - and I'm not denigrating Ace Ventura, it was actually a semi-funny movie...but on that day, when I was trying on my ill-fitting "parent" shoes for one of the first times, it wasn't the least bit humorous.
Anyway, what was PG-13 in 1994 is not what's PG-13 today either. The line shifts all the time...and not always toward the more prurient.
I remember as a boy going to my first PG-13 movies and being surprised (and admittedly somewhat delighted) to discover a number of them contained significant amounts nudity. I thought I was getting away with something. But back then the line was in a different place. Those films may have contained nudity - okay maybe not significant amounts, but any nudity to a 13-year old boy, at least this one, was significant back then - but the movies didn't contain "bad language." When I was a kid, it was language that automatically moved a film into a different rating category...the line was drawn at certain words. I find that odd now since at 13 I was well acquainted with foul language, but scantily dressed women were certainly not
part of my life...not even my dream life at that point.
Before letting my mind drift any further in that direction let's get back to a much less incriminating point that this little low budget football movie - that'll probably go straight to DVD - called, "Facing The Giants" has received a "PG" rating.
Personally, I would expect any football movie to have a PG rating. I assume somewhere in the film will be a coach who curses, and there are bound to be bone-crunching tackles that could be disturbing to little kids...but that's NOT why the Motion Picture Association of America bestowed the PG rating on this film. It was rated PG...for "thematic elements." That's a pretty broad umbrella, so when members of the pseudo-mysterious MPAA board were asked to elaborate, the response they gave was that parents should be "warned" essentially about the film proselytizing.
Not foul language, violence or nudity...but Gospel spreading.
According to the Scripps-Howard News Service, the movie was deemed "too evangelistic" for a "G" rating.
"Too evangelistic."
That's a new one. Isn't it?
A spokeswoman for Sony films is quoted as saying the MPAA determined the movie talked about one religion so much that it, "might offend people from other religions."
There's not a doubt in my mind that this movie hammers home a strong Christian theme. I'm not expecting subtlety from a film produced by a church. Heck that is the theme, the plot and half the dialogue I'm certain. It was written, produced and for a large part, acted, by members of Sherwood Baptist Church. I suppose someone could go to this movie completely unaware that it is a Christian film, but it's not like they're hiding it on the movie poster that says, "Never Give Up. Never Back Down. Never Lose Faith."
But would people from "other religions" really be "offended" by it?
We could argue the minutiae of religions indefinitely, but for the most part I think we could agree that - when not interpreted by psychos - most religions make "faith" at least a component if not a cornerstone.
So exactly what "religion" would be offended by that concept? You may very well consider any number or all religions misguided, or even crazy...but would you be "offended" by a movie showing people who believe differently?
For the record, "Fiddler On The Roof" is rated "G." That's a movie that's certainly dominated by a Jewish perspective...Um...because it's about a Jewish family. I love that movie. I'm not Jewish, but I wasn't offended by it.
Do you know anyone who was "offended" by Fiddler?
Me neither.
Oddly enough, the PG rating will probably help the film anyway. More kids are apt to go to a PG movie than one rated G.
Still I find the rating reasoning odd.
So what else is new?
I guess the line moved again.
posted by Michael
©The Main Point by Michael Main
5 Comments
5 Comments:
Heck, if they could have gotten an "R" rating, it would be a block-buster hit!
I think it could be done. It would take a few more bone crunching tackles. You know, we would have to see the bone come thru the skin. Maybe a multiple fracture or two. A little blood flying out of the face mask. That should juat about do it.
There would need to be a fight scene between competing teams as well. Someone may have to die a violent death, but I'm sure it could be turned into a pivotal moment. Yeah, that's it...a pivotal moment.
Once we get the rating up, all sorts of people will come to see it.
Tim
P.s. You know the sad thing is that I'm only "half" joking.
Without meaning to sound "defensive" here, Michael, I ask: Why shouldn't the line change when what we hold up as standards within the Church change? I'm not a great believer in legality, but in 34 years I have noted how our roots within Pentecost year after year have slowly degenerated into present-day "we've got it right now". Then, spread the blanket across the denominational agenda and you find how the faith, itself, has evolved through the centuries. We, as believers, gasp at the violence in "The Passion", laugh at the Muslims and Danish cartoons, and then scream bloody Mary when Hollywood suggests Christ may have mortal descendants. Personally, I'm never surprised, my friend, at what we do on either side of "World vs Church"...........
I completetly agree with your assesment of the film, although, I have not had the opportunity to see it yet. We all know that the MPAA's rating system (not to mention our entire society's standards) have become subjective;fluid. The review mentioned "Fiddler on the Roof" - another would be "Shindler's List" which no one batted an eye about with its' Jewish themes - it is a classic. One of the best movies of all times. No one is offended about it being a "Jewish movie" = How Silly! And although I understand Jim's point about the church's wavering on certain issues, I don't totally agree - in a lot of respects, our UNDERSTANDING of what the scriptures REALLY say has changed (dare I say - "evolved"?) thoughout time. For example, the verse (I can't quote it exactly, unfortunately) that talks about people marrying who are "unevenly yoked" - USED to be quoted to argue that blacks and whites should never marry and have children. NOW, we have decided (for the most part) that in fact, what the Bible means is that people of DIFFERENT FAITHS should not intermarry. That is because "race" at that time, didn't refer to skin color but of place of origin. I also saw "The Passion" and frankly, did not find it so much a violent movie as did others. It was no more a violent movie than any other movie I have seen, even with a "PG" rating. What made me flinch was not so much of WHAT was being done but to WHOM it was being done TO. In addition, I -was- offended -for- the muslim community when those Danish cartoons came out. If we are going to be offended when others take aim at our religion, "we" (collective) should not take aim ("throw stomes") at other's. Although, I do believe the reaction to the cartoons by the muslim community was over the top in respect to the violence that resulted.
Michael, my old friend Michael: I?ve been away for a few days, or I would have chimed in sooner.
While I?m by no means a fan of the MPAA board, I believe that you missed their point about assigning a rating to this movie: It?s not that some parents would be offended by the subject matter, so they have to be warned -- it?s that these parents would be offended if they were not warned.
The MPAA is right, even if they can?t provide a cogent explanation. A rating of any kind more serious than G is an aid for parents and the viewing public. Facing The Giants is a movie that in its title, poster text and poster imagery gives no hint of being full of proselytizing messages.
I would suggest that this is no problem for many practicing Christians because they are looking at the issue from the inside.
From the outside, I can tell you that there is nothing especially Christian-sounding about Never Give Up. Never Back Down. Never Lose Faith. That phrasing sounds like any of the other locker room platitudes that somehow strike a segment of our population as media-worthy.
What parents can find offensive is that the proselytizing message appears to be hidden behind a sports façade. There?s no point in comparing this film to Fiddler on the Roof (which, by-the-way, weren?t we both in during junior high school, in a choral concert version? But I digress?.)
While I suppose that it?s possible for someone to go see Fiddler on the Roof and assume it will be about a part-time musician who does home repairs, this must be a rare occurrence.
What is not rare, again from my vantage point as a non-Christian, is the appearance in our culture of unexpected presumptions of shared Christianity.
I?m not speaking here of problematic December greetings, or invocation-leaders who address a public group with in Jesus? name we pray. These are fleeting episodes, and say considerably more about the world view of the speaker than about the actual world.
What is more at issue are works of art that are long lasting and repeatable ? movies, live shows, and TV series in particular. These creations become a world unto themselves. The public and especially parents have an interest in knowing about enduring pieces of our culture, as these can have an influence on others, particularly children.
For example, do you have any negative connotation associated with the Broadway musical Peter Pan? It was surely intended to be an innocuous piece of 50s entertainment. Of course, if one thinks hard, there do seem to be plot facets that could be offensive to handicapped people and Native Americans.
But more to the point I?m making: Do you recall the scene in which Peter Pan encourages the three children to think Lovely Thoughts so they?ll be able to fly like him? The magic word turns out to be Christmas, and as soon as it takes effect, guess how many children in the audience are suddenly wondering if any of the show?s gifts are meant for them.
Artists have a right to make art, and we all have a right to project our families. That?s why parents appreciate being warned, and are offended when they?re not.
All the best,
Harlan
Well put Harlan, and yes it was in 7th grade that we took part in a choral arrangement of "Fiddler." It was that same production when our music teacher decided I was perfect...to run the slide-show I think. The first person to realize my natural vocal abilities might be better kept well hidden :)
M
Post a Comment
<< Home