A Christian View of Movie
Ratings
By
Paul Scott Heidmann
NOVEMBER 28, 2002
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Introduction........................................................................................................................... iii
Section 1. By This Standard................................................................................................... 1
The MPAA Standard.................................................................................... 1
The Christian Standard.................................................................................. 3
The Standards Related................................................................................... 3
Section 2. The Contents of R-Rated Movies.......................................................................... 6
The Content of R,X, and XXX Rated Movies Compared............................... 6
Observations................................................................................................. 7
Section 3. Conclusions........................................................................................................... 9
Introduction
As a Christian who attends movies, I am faced with the
problem of determining, before I view any movie, whether or not the content
will be God glorifying. Generally, I
have but one resource available to me on which I can base this prejudgment, the
rating of the movie. This can become
problematic when I consider that in all probability, the rating was assigned by
a non-Christian. Without doubt, the
rating system today is vague and subjective.
Does there exist any value whatsoever in these ratings?
In this paper, I hope to answer that question in the
affirmative (with qualifications). While
no Christian should ever rely solely on the opinions of non-Christians, he may
make use of them (as long as they accord with the revealed truth). How can Christians glean information from
these opinions (ratings)?
Working with the limited and tainted information available
to us (ratings), we need to determine which movies contain elements that would
cause us to violate God's law. We must
never base our determinations on the judgments of non-Christians, but instead
on God's revelation predicting how non-Christians must behave. We must lay bare all motives behind the
rating system and those who govern it.
We must then use this information to interpret the opinions of the
raters and finally submit this to God's law.
Section
1
By This Standard
In searching for an answer to the apparent conundrum of a
distinctively Christian interpretation of the current movie rating system,
careful attention must first be given to the standards of the raters
themselves. Christians, if they are at
all to place any value in the ratings system, must ascertain how consistent the
standards used by the raters are with the standards set forth in God's revealed
word. This will indeed prove to be a
difficult task. The standards set forth
in Scripture are not only propositional, but also exacting. The standards employed by the MPAA (Motion
Picture Association of America) are at best vague and subjective.
The MPAA Standard
The current rating system was developed in 1968 by the MPAA. Richard D. Heffner, chairman of CARA
(Classification and Rating Administration), has stated:
Our Main objective is to provide an early-warning
signal to parents, who may then exercise their own responsibility to expose
their youngsters to more mature film content only as they individually mature.
|
Ratings
|
|
|
G
|
Nothing that would offend parents for viewing by children
|
|
PG
|
Parents urged to give "parental guidance." May contain some material parents might not
like for their young children.
|
|
PG-13
|
Parents are urged to be cautious. Some material my be inappropriate for
pre-teenagers.
|
|
R
|
Contains some adult material. Parents are urged to learn more about the
film before taking their young children with them.
|
|
NC-17
|
Patently adult.
Children are not permitted.
|
|
|
|
Central to this issue is, then: How do the MPAA and CARA determine what is
appropriate for children? That is, how
do they distinguish between that which is not appropriate for young (where is
the cutoff between not young and young?) children and that which is? The response is none too revealing:
In rating a specific film the MPAA takes into account
whether it upholds the dignity of life, exercises restraint in portraying
juvenile crime, does not demean religion, prohibits extreme violence and
brutality as well as obscene speech, gestures or movements, and limits sexual content
and nudity.
Haunting questions yet remain: What determines what "dignity of
life" is? How "extreme"
need violence be to achieve the classification "extreme violence"? Who differentiates between speech that is not
"obscene" and speech that is?
An anonymous panel chosen by the MPAA representing a
"cross section" of parents makes these decisions. The real question is, then, how do they make
these decisions? Peter Wood comments:
...it's (the ratings board) judgments are so purely
subjective, based entirely on what it's seven members believe the American
public finds acceptable at that particular moment in History.
Clearly then, the standard on which the movie ratings are
based is the subjective opinion of an anonymous seven member panel. The haunting questions must remain so
(specifically), as we can say nothing about the world views of the panel
members. Nietzsche (himself very
antagonistic towards Christianity) summarizes exactly what this sort of standard
is (originally, this text refers to philosophers of Nietzsche's day, but it
applies to this situation as well):
They pose as having discovered and attained their real
opinions through the self-evolution of a cold, pure, divinely unperturbed
dialectic: while what happens at bottom is that a prejudice, a notion, an
'inspiration', generally a desire of the heart sifted and made abstract, is
defended by them with reasons sought after the event -- they are one and all
advocates who do not want to be regarded as such, and for the most part no
better than cunning pleaders for their prejudices, which they baptize
'truths'...
The Christian Standard
As Christians, we can (and must) do far better then
this. We are blessed to view creation
analogically after a sovereign God. For
us, knowledge, ethics, and morals must be propositional. Cornelius Van Til has perhaps related it
best:
The Bible is thought of as authoritative on everything
of which it speaks. Moreover, it speaks
of everything.
With this view, everything we know has as it's standard the
revealed word of God. Our knowledge of
right and wrong must as well be based solely on the teachings of the
Bible. This includes, of coarse, our
standards for differentiating between those movies that would not cause a
Christian to violate God's law and those that would.
The Standards Related
At this point we face a seemingly impossible task. Obviously, we as Christians cannot trust the
MPAA standard. Equally obvious, we
cannot indiscriminately attend any movie which we see fit. How then can we predetermine which movies are
beneficial? Trusting a Christian
reviewer would be the best possible solution; a conscience analogically
grounded in God's word, reporting on the degree of submission of the movies'
content to God's law. Unfortunately,
these sort of reviewers are presently scarce.
Careful thought must be given to the bleak situation of trying to
predetermine the appropriateness of a movies' content solely with an MPAA
rating.
What then can be said concerning these ratings? As Christians, we must completely reject the
standard on which they are based. Is it
then possible to glean any sort of information from them? This question needs thoughtful consideration
grounded in God's word.
Before beginning, I must state that it will be assumed that
those rating the movies are not Christians.
While this assumption will not be difficult to accept, it cannot be
proved since the panel is anonymous. I
would also point out that given the fact that the panel is anonymous, we must
make this assumption. If there are any
Christians on the panel, well and good; the principles put forth in this essay
will still apply. However if we make an
incorrect assumption that the panel is mostly Christian, then the results we
reach will be invalid.
We begin our search of the Scriptures with a passage from
Romans:
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against
all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who supress the truth in
unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them;
for God made it evident to them. For
since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and
divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been
made, so that they are without excuse.
For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give
thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart
was darkened. Professing to be wise,
they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an
image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and
crawling creatures. Therefore God gave
them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be
dishonored among them. For they
exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature
rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their
women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the
same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in
their desire toward one and other, men with men committing indecent acts and
receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge
God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which
are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil;
full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers,
haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to
parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; and,
although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things
are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval
to those who practice them.
Certainly, there is a wealth of information here. In relation to the present discussion, we may
say that those who rate the movies that we view know in their hearts the law of
God. In fact, they cannot help but know
it; Van Til summarizes:
This means that God, not some sort of God or some
higher principle, but God, the true God, is displayed before men. This is the fact of the matter, whether men
recognize it or not.
Unfortunately, they don't simply know it (God's law), they
also suppress it. The Westminster
Confession states with brevity the teachings of Scripture regarding this point:
From this original corruption (the fall of man),
whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and
wholly inclined to evil, do proceed all actual transgressions.
This being the case, it can be said that natural man will
purposely choose his standard above God's.
The real import is, then, to what extant will natural man's standard be
in submission to God's law in spite of himself?
Here we must look to the concept of common grace. Common grace is best thought of as "the
crumbs that fall from the master's table that the dogs eat." This concept is well justified by Scriptures:
For it is for this we labor and strive, because we
have fixed our hope on the living God, who is savior of all men, especially of
believers.
Obviously, this verse cannot teach universalism. What it teaches us then, is that God is the
savior of all men in the sense that he sustains, heals, and protects all men
(this is common grace). But why would
God give these gifts to those who hate Him?
If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat; And if
he is thirsty, give him water to drink; For you will heap burning coals on his
head, And the Lord will reward you.
Part of the life-sustaining function of common grace is an
enforcement of God's law. Without God's
law, the unregenerate will eventually work out the suicidal results of the
wickedness of their hearts. In fact:
The common grace which restrains the totally depraved
character of Satan and his followers is, in fact, part of God's special curse
on them. Every gift returns to condemn
them on the day of judgment, heaping coals of fire on their heads.
And, especially significant to the subject at hand:
...the law of God stands as a reminder to unregenerate
men that it is better to conform in part than not to conform at all, even
though the end result of rebellion is destruction.
So, we should expect to see some obedience to God's
standards reflected in the movie ratings.
In order to retain any power or influence, natural man must conform
somewhat to God's standards. And when he
does conform, the source of his conformity can only be God.
In conclusion, we should expect to see some submission on
the movie rater's part to God's law.
Certainly the amount of submission will not be adequate, and in fact can
never (by ourselves) be exactly measured.
We should also expect to see differing degrees of submission over
time. Practically, we need to evaluate
the content of movies with questionable ratings and look for generalities. This is the best that we, as Christians, can
salvage from this delapitated rating system.
Section
2
The Contents of R-Rated Movies
In this section the question of exactly what R-rated movies
contain will be addressed. In
particular, the contents of movies with an R rating will be compared to the
contents of movies with X and XXX ratings.
Conclusions will then be drawn and applications of those conclusions
stated.
The Content of R,X, and XXX Rated Movies Compared
The data in this section is drawn from a study done by Ni
Yang and Daniel Linz. In this study, Yang and Linz selected a
random sample of 90 movies; 30 rated R, 30 rated X, and 30 rated XXX. Especially important to the understanding of
this data is the following:
Fourth, and most important, behavior was selected as
the unit of analysis rather than scene.
Palys had defined a scene as "a thematically uninterrupted sequence
of activity in a given physical context," thus emphasizing the physical
context in which the behavior occurred.
But a behavior may extend over several physical contexts. For example, in Paly's study a depiction of a
woman being beaten in her home, pursued outside into the driveway, chased in
her car by her assailant, and eventually caught and beaten again would have
been counted as four scenes of violence.
Videos with many changes of scene thus might be coded for more violence
than videos portraying an equal number of violent acts that occur in one
physical location. Since R-rated
productions are generally more elaborate and costly than X-rated ones, often with
many changes of scene and on-location filming, a scene-by-scene tabulation of
violence might exaggerate their violence.
Coding behaviors instead eliminates this potential bias...behavior was
defined as an uninterrupted sequence of activity or a series of acts continuous
in time and space, not broken or interrupted by the addition or departure of
characters.
Using this definition of behavior, coders where instructed
to code (tabulate) the following four types of behavior:
Sexual behavior was defined as explicit sexual
activity in the absence of deception, coercion, or aggression. A behavior was considered sexual if any focal
participant was involved in any lascivious action, even if fully clothed, that
would be noticeable and deemed inappropriate in a dimly lit public place...Violent
behavior was defined as interpersonal aggression that is not intrinsically
part of sexual activity. Violence was
defined as occurring whenever a person intentionally imposes or attempts to
impose hurt, abuse, or force upon another person...Sexually violent behavior
was defined as behavior that depicts sexual activity with deception, coercion,
or aggression, threatened or actual.
Sexual violence thus involved the use of force and/or an attempt to hurt
in the context of sexual activity. The
sex and violence had to be intertwined...Prosocial behavior was defined
as behavior generally accepted by society as constructive, appropriate, and
legal. Verbal expressions of concern
were not considered; only physical activities were coded...
As can be seen from this graph, the content of movies rated
R and movies rated X are not significantly different. However, there is certainly more data
available to us than represented in the above graph. Consider the following:
Here I would point out that in general, R-rated movies are
far more violent than movies rated X and XXX; also, there is approximately the
same amount of sexually violent behavior in all three categories. As expected, movies with ratings of X and XXX
contain substantially more sexual behavior.
Especially surprising is the sexually violent behavior. Most would expect that movies rated X and XXX
should contain significantly more of this material. Obviously, this is not the case. There is something else to consider,
however. The mean (average) length (i.e.
- time) of these scenes.
Finally, one more thing needs mention. Of the movies sampled, only 1 R-rated movie
contained neither sexual violence nor violence compared to 4 in the X rated
category and 16 in the XXX rated category.
Observations
The first graph (Contents of Movies) is especially
significant. It shows that, by and
large, R-rated movies are more susceptible to contain both violence and sexual
violence than either X or XXX rated films.
Categorically, this means that we should expect to get a greater variety
of sinful behavior depicted for us in an R-rated film.
The graph "Behavior Occurrences" sheds additional
light on the situation at hand. We
observe several things:
That R,X, and XXX rated films are basically
equivalent in the number of times that sexually violent behavior is depicted.
That films rated R are by and large far
more violent than films rated X and XXX.
That, (as expected) films rated X and XXX
contain more occurrences of sexual behavior.
That while movies with an R rating do
indeed contain fewer occurrences of sexual behavior, there is still a
significant sexual content (approximately two occurrences per movie).
From the graph "Mean Time of Sexually Violent
Scenes", we will merely observe that when these scenes occur in movies
rated X and XXX, they are generally longer; however, the mean time of these
scenes in R-rated films is still significant (over one minute).
