That's what I was trying to say! The "moral" messages are more complex then how to be squeaky-clean.

Hmm, strange isn't it? But it's okay to learn about how Jesus was murdered, naked and bloody on a torture device. Because that's more appropriate for kids than a film that reflects realistic situations.

If that Passion of the Christ movie had been about anyone else it would have been rated NC-17.

Archeopetryx, you're so right! Shakespeare is a great point. And you know that most of the books I've read in school have contained rape, incest, gruesome violence, racism, etc. But it's "okay" if it's in an academic sense, yet "vile" if it's on television.

I watched violent SciFi movies with my dad when I was a kid and my reaction was usually "Cool..." Kids are less likely to get disturbed by violence on tv/film since they don't have enough life experience to recognize the context behind it.

Look at this shit...High School Musical 3 awarded Parents Television Council seal of approval? Great, more shitty Hollywood garbage for an already idiotic generation.

Apparently one of my favorite shows, Gossip Girl includes a scene of "graphic sex". Since when? That show has tons of sex but it's so censored you could easily assume they're just dry humping. And I love how these guides ignore the OTHER messages in the show, like eating disorders, adolescent/family struggles etc. because someone said "bitch". Ooooh, its a WORD! Ohh my god shield the children from the evil media! It's corrupting our youth!

Apparently innocuous kissing on a kid's show is under the category "sexual theme". You could make a case that Teletubbies is disturbing and sexual, which it most likely is cause that show makes NO FUCKING SENSE. Oh wait, THEY DID MAKE A CASE FOR IT BEING SEXUAL.

How did our species ever evolve? How?

 Well, while we're talking about standards of offense, a couple of weeks ago, I watched "Shortbus," which is basically a series of vignettes that all converge on one quirky underground sex club.  Each set of characters has their own sexual issues, from the sex therapist who's never had an orgasm to the gay man who has been making a detailed documentary of his entire life to give to his lover after he commits suicide.

There's real sex in it.  Erect penises.  Vaginas.  Ejaculation.  By all "decency standards" it's porn.  But it's not porn.  To say that it's a movie designed to give people sexual stimulation is absurd.  Yeah, there's probably something in it that appeals to almost any taste, but the point of the movie is obviously not sexual titillation.  It's creating an unflinchingly real model of reality.

Personally, I thought it was a well made, if somewhat cliche movie (cliche in the direction and cinematography, not the subject matter) but when you're in a crowd of -- oh, I dunno -- maybe three or four movies in the same genre, you have to get some props for that kind of cinematic bravery.

All of this is interesting, and backs up your point, Peppermint, that the nuance behind movie "morality" is very subtle.  However, I'd like to raise a larger point.  When we use the same language as theists when speaking of movies' messages and morality, we are playing into a trap.  If we play along with the defense of certain movies, we are admitting that there's a need to defend them!

Personally, I'm a big fan of movies that portray reality, like Requiem for a Dream and Boogie Nights.  I tend to really hate action thrillers.  I despise the obligatory physics-defying car chase.  Yet, I love sci-fi movies.  Fantasy?  Sure... give me dragons and princesses, and to hell with the budget.  "Dragonslayer" still amuses me.

The thing is, these preferences are just that -- preferences.  I would not presume to tell someone that they can't watch empty action movies or a whole marathon of Julia Roberts chick flicks if that's what they want.  Most people don't have a problem following it this far, but because of this arbitrary Christian emphasis on sex, it's assumed that some subjects just "go too far."  I don't see the divide.  Honestly, I don't even see the divide between art and porn.  Yeah, I know, I know... porn can be exploitive.  So can Hollywood, folks.  The thing is, there are Hollywood films with worse acting than Debbie Does Dallas, so it isn't a matter of acting.  Ever seen Showgirls?  Striptease?  The Red Shoe Diaries?  Wild Orchid?  There are plenty of Hollywood films that are obviously just out to turn us on and make us think about sex.   If you leave Hollywood and visit the rest of the world, there are plenty of films with real sex and very well simulated sex that are very artfully done and still turn us on -- substance and sex appeal!  (Think "Sex and Lucia," "Nine Songs&quot  Well, it's a stretch to call Nine Songs a good film, but it definitely has sexy moments.

Finally, do a quick google search for "real amateurs" and amidst the thousands of professional porn sites, you'll find a dozen or so sites where real people videotape or photograph themselves, or themselves with their significant others, or just random hookups, or whatever, and post them on the web.  They're clearly not being exploited, yet they're making sexual videos for the enjoyment of others.

Could it be... is it possible.... some people like to be watched?  (We could ask... if some people enjoy it, is it wrong for them to make money from it?)

The point is, Christians (and quite a few non-Christians as well)  will try to draw a solid line between good film and bad film, and try to base it on a rather arbitrary moral standard.  That standard, as anyone who studies the science of humanity knows, is bogus.  They've singled out sex as a dividing line.  If the sex is real (or too close to real) then it's not good for anyone to watch.  (Don't get me started on how bad it is to teach children who don't know a damn thing about sex that sex is dirty.)  If there's too much sex, it's bad.  If there are drugs without depiction of a judge handing down the maximum possible sentence, it's bad.

 The hidden assumption in all of this is that film is supposed to be a certain way.  Maybe in another thread, it would be worth discussing the research and pseudo-research into the effects of different kinds of film on viewers, because there certainly are real effects, but once again, the Christian belief turns out to be based on dogma, not science.

 It seems to me there is an even sharper divide, DDA.  Even among parents who have "the talk" there is often an off-on kind of switch.  If a six year old asks about sex, the parents will say, "You're not old enough."  That's stupid.  If a kid is old enough to ask the question, he's old enough to get an answer commensurate to his cognitive abilities.  Many adults seem to think that childhood is a beautiful asexual bliss that ends abruptly when puberty hits.  Funny thing, science disagrees.  We're always sexual beings to some degree or another.  We're just not mature sexual beings until after puberty.

This puts porn in a different category.  Suppose an eight year old sees a photo of two men having anal sex while wearing latex body suits and slathering themselves with canned spaghetti-O's.  (Don't make fun of my imagination, dude!!)  Most parents would have a shit fit, call the government, and have men in biohazard suits decontaminate the whole area.  Then they'd do the little strobe pen from Men In Black and try to erase all memory of the event.

A thoughtful parent might take a different approach, however.  "Gee, Little Johnny, that is pretty strange, isn't it?  You know how some men like women, and other men like men?  Well, those were men who like men, and they also like to do some pretty weird things with clothes.  Sometimes adults like to use their imaginations just like kids, only they use their imaginations for grown up things.  Anyway, I'm going to start making dinner.  Do you want to help me with the vegetables?"

No panic, no life changing event.  Prepubescent children tend to be singularly uninterested in porn, but adults seem to think that a child's interest in a particular porn image is interest in sex.  They're not remembering that children think differently.  In the example I gave, we as adults have to realize that the sex part of the picture would be the first thing we see, but a kid would see two men in latex with spaghetti-O's all over them.

Like I said... explanations commensurate with ability to comprehend.

I definitely agree. We can't attempt to defend all aspects of a movie we love based on a perceived morality, just as xians can't attempt to defend all aspects of their bible based on some set of moral lessons they've cherry picked. Just as we could say, "Whatever morality you've cherry-picked from the bible is far outweighed by the garbage it contains", a theist could make the same statement about, say, Shortbus. (Which is a movie I've heard about but never seen.)

I don't have any disagreement with people who want to defend their favorite movie or their favorite religious text on the basis of artistic expression, though. This isn't a problem for people who want to talk about movies, since it's an opportunity to exchange subjective insights about craftsmanship, cinematography, writing, adaptation, etc. It's a problem for the bible, though, since many theists refuse to consider their religion on a completely subjective level, like discussing their favorite musical genre.

I personally don't believe movies have inherent moral value. They often portray human themes in a way that makes us reflect, and so a moral lesson might result, but whatever you learn will be completely a product of your own self-examination. In other words, in order to derive morality from movies or literature (including the bible), you have to come to the movie or the literature with some kind of morality to work with. The movie or the literature simply provides you with a new angle, a new situation you yourself haven't experienced, and so it offers you an opportunity to reframe your concept of morality, to come away with a more fine-tuned sense of what you already held to be true.

But I don't think anyone goes into a movie or starts a book and comes out with a belief they didn't already have.

I often boast that I have seen the worst movies ever made, and no one has yet shown me a movie that competes with these two in utter terribleness.

1) Return to Frogtown - (The lead male has the HUGEST HEAD I HAVE EVER SEEN)

2) R.O.T.O.R. - (The two main protagonists are named "Dr. Steele" and "Captain Coldyrne" (pronounced "cold iron&quot, which should tell you all you need to know.)

I would actually highly recommend them, though, since they're so bad that it's fucking hilarious. I gave Return to Frogtown as a Christmas present one year. The recipient still hails it as one of the best gifts she's ever received. And the next year, I got an Army of Darkness movie poster in return! Score!!!

You say that as if I didn't have it open in another tab. 

That sums up very eloquently the attitude I disagree with. No artistic medium is required to produce only such-and-such types of things. We can reject anything we don't like that comes out of it, but who are we to try to impose some kind of filter on it at the expense of others who might be seeking a certain style?

Just as laws attempting to regulate what substances people put in their own bodies are irrational and a waste of time (see prohibition and the so-called war on drugs), laws which attempt to regulate what IDEAS people entertain in their own heads is irrational and a waste of time.

I hope Big Brother doesn't come arrest me for thought-crime. (Props to Orwell.)

Miller's Tale!!! All highschool students must read the Miller's Tale!!!

Sex, farts, mooning, practical jokes, and humiliation. What's not to love?!?! 

Actually, I don't think I protest to Catcher In the Rye. I think everyone should read it, but not in high school. That's just wasting their time. I don't know how the book became classified as YA literature. It is a book ABOUT a kid of high school age, but it really takes an adult perspective to appreciate. It's like if you tried to write a book in which the theme was that high school years are the best years of our lives. You can't expect high school kids to appreciate that. They're high school kids! They don't have the necessary frame of reference!

I think Catch In the Rye is much the same. Maybe high school students can find some other way to appreciate it, and I don't mean to argue that everyone should appreciate it in the same way, but I just have a hard time seeing it as a book targeted at high school kids rather than being a book ABOUT high school kids. 

I second you on this one, too. I always assumed it was because it was the most religiously and sexually "safe" shakespeare story.

Hamlet and Much Ado About Nothing are my personal favorites. =] 

Actually, I started reading King Lear a few months ago, and it was shaping up nicely, but I had to put it on hold. So.. King Lear is probably awesome? I agree though. Julius Caesar isn't that exciting.

Greats points, hamby. I read Lolita my senior year of HS and fell in love with it. My english teacher actually encouraged me to do a nuanced paper on it, and it was interesting. I had a lot of friends that read Catcher in the Rye and loved it, so I don't think it's fair to assume high schoolers won't appreciate it as some people feel. It's more about mental maturity than anything else.

I also agree completely that film doesn't have inherent morality. Sometimes it just IS. Why we find enjoyment in things is more complex than whether it gives us a "life lesson". And if you are learning "life lessons" from TV/film exclusively you need to get out of the house.

To me, these trashy kid shows are worse than the "offensive" film out there. Has anyone else noticed children's TV has become more and more mindless recently? Characters are insipid and one-dimensional, humor is obnoxious and the plots are so recycled it makes my head hurt. Pretty much all of those "sitcoms" on the Disney Channel are total crap. Whenever I babysit I don't know how these kids find enjoyment in this garbage.

Don't get me wrong, I like my occasional mindless TV, but if I'm going to watch junk food it's going to at least be somewhat witty and creative. I also love classic children's books and sweet little cartoon movies because they're fun and a great escape from reality, but children shouldn't be limited to that!

Check this out:

 Wow...if you haven't talked to your kid ONCE about sex and they're a TEENAGER, you have failed. And why are these researchers assuming teens are complete idiots who can't DECODE FANTASY??

Once at camp when I was 10 or 11, we were watching one of my all-time favorites, The Lion King. The counselor fast-forwarded the part where Mufasa is killed and I got annoyed. "It's too sad! This isn't good for you guys to watch! There are younger kids here!"

What. the. fuck?

I am more touched by those scenes NOW because I have the life experience to be affected by it and the emotional development to be sensitive to it. Not saying kids aren't sensitive, but it's definitely different. I was pretty numb to that scene as a kid and much more fascinated by the music, animation and story. The "sad" parts of the film didn't effect me until I was much older.

inability to appreciate catcher in the rye is not my problem.  my problem is it's really angst-y and pretentious and overrated.  i always get called a heretic for that, but when it comes to novels of youth, i think kids would learn more from wait until spring, bandini or maggie cassidy.  actually, if i could only pick one novel of youth for high schoolers to read, it would be charles bukowski's ham on rye.  every school administrator in the US would be after my head, but i guarantee you the kids could relate to it more than salinger.

Fair enough.

I don't watch a lot of children's television, but I'm of the belief that it's not so much that television is becoming more mindless and crappy. The writing/acting on television shows used to be more god awful than most people remember. Our television shows are actually getting a lot better in general, but I think that all of the improvements are producing audiences with more sophisticated tastes.

I remember when I thought the special effects in Terminator 2 were mind-blowing. But now when I see clips of the movie, I'm like "Meh. They do fancier shit than that on TV."

But if we're talking exclusively about children's tv... hm.. I don't know. I wouldn't be able to tear myself away from my own nostalgic biases to honestly assess today's children's shows. I think everyone generation believes that its television shows were the most bad ass children's shows of all time and that the following generation's are craptastic.

But I could be wrong?

I wouldn't agree with that.  It does depend on what channel you're watching.  I have noticed that there are a lot more calm shows on now.  I like that for 2 reasons 1) my kid isn't bouncing off the wall at the end of a program and 2) some of the slower shows can actually take the time to introduce elementary critical thinking.  You do have be selective to find these programs, but there seem to be a fair number more offered now than when I was a kid.

I can't remember the name of the Psycologist who came up with the concept, but I remember something about "The Garden".  It is the idea of placing children in a compltely safe enviroment only to later throw them into the wilderness without any ability to cope with reality.

It's a sad thing, but it would seem that "ignorance is bliss" tends to be the general rule for most people.  I like to think of it as a reflection to their fragile god.  If you think too hard on Yaweh (or other god) too hard then *poof* there they go, I guess they think of their morality in the very same way.  If they allow their children to actually think, then *poof* there goes their morality.  They already act like homosexuality is so addictive that it has to be outlawed.

I took my two oldest, (boy and oldest girl) to see '300' in the theatre. They loved it and haven't eviscerated, raped, or bludgeoned anyone... yet. lol.

By contrast, I took my youngest (6 yr. old) to see 'WALL-E' and I almost cried in the first five minutes. She even had to ask me if I was ok.

'WALL-E' was more of a horror movie for me. Scariest fucking picture I've ever seen besides 'Idiocracy'.