The Challenge of Art

I came across a great article that falls right in line with our purpose of seeking out good art.  The whole article is worth your attention, here's a small excerpt:

"The challenge of art is beauty. And the challenge of beauty is truth. Truth is challenging. But it is also inviting. It is also glorious and liberating. Truth is wondrous, not scandalous....

New and Updated Moral Rating System

The rating system we've been using up until now has been very simple (a Moral Value score of 1-5), but it's been hard to be consistent on our ratings given that we just looked at a list of criteria and assigned a score that we felt fit best.  We've recently developed a formula for a Moral Value score to help us be more consistent and hopefully make our ratings a little more useful.  We appreciate all the inspiration and feedback we've received from family and friends on this.

The new formula is:

Good Entertainment vs. Evil Entertainment

While reading in our church's guidelines for youth on the subject of Entertainment and the Media, I was inspired to broaden my study. In Moroni 7:12 it says, "Wherefore, all things which are good cometh of God; and that which is evil cometh of the devil." That seems pretty straightforward and obvious in how it applies to media, but what about movies that aren't evil, but also can't be considered to be from God?  Is there a spectrum of Good movies and Evil movies or just a simple dividing line?  Could it be displayed in the fashion of RottenTomatoes - FooBar movie is 78% Good (or 22% Evil)?  (That's what we try to do here, more or less, with our less-than-perfect rating system.)  I think that there is value to this system, but would it also be necessary to categorize all movies into two separate categories of either Good or Evil?  Let's look at how we could define Good and Evil first.

Elder M. Russel Ballard, Quorum of the Twelve in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, stated, with regards to Good media, that we can

"find movies and TV comedies and dramas that entertain and uplift and accurately depict the consequences of right and wrong."  

He then continues by defining one aspect of evil media,

"Often media's most devastating attacks on family are not direct or frontal or openly immoral. Intelligent evil is too cunning for that, knowing that most people still profess belief in family and in traditional values. Rather the attacks are subtle and amoral—issues of right and wrong don't even come up" (emphasis added).

According to Elder Ballard, then, if a movie doesn't "accurately depict the consequences of right and wrong" it is evil. In Orson Scott Card's A Storyteller in Zion, he says divides evil into three categories: Evil depicted, advocated, and enacted by fiction.  Regarding the depiction of evil,

"Freedom of speech ... includes the right to speak about evil.  Our own General Authorities [of the Church] devote a considerable amount of time to speaking about evil, from the evil of Communism to the evil of child abuse, from the evil of non-attendance at sacrament meeting to the evil of forgetting to pray."  

The advocation of evil is also a right we're guaranteed under the Constitution.

"Any speaker may advocate any evil act.  In America, a speaker may advocate revolution, crime, cowardice, dishonesty...  In any society, what seems evil to one person may seem right and just to another -- and i na free society, the government is forbidden to silence one and promote the other.  Instead, each individual is expected to listen to all and make up his own mind."  

Lastly, enacting evil,

"The traditional example is the person who shouts "Fire!" in a crowded theater.  He can call it a joke; he can claim that his freedom of speech allows him to lie; but in fact his lie, his joke, may cost people life or limb in the panic that ensues...  There are times when some rights conflict, and a free society, to preserve itself, must place limits on its own freedom." 

Card then helps us better understand how these evils are different and why enacting.

"All fiction depicts evil, but the mere depiction of evil is not wrong.  And, because all fiction unavoidably expresses the moral convictions of the writer and because every writer will have different moral convicitions, some fiction is bound to advocate things that at least some readers think is evil.  But even that advocacy is protected.

"It is only when the fiction actually enacts evil in itself that it becomes dangerous, and the government of a free society can begin to consider limiting it.

"Pornography is the obvious case of fiction enacting evil.  It is designed to give direct or indirect sexual gratification...

"The problem arises when the untrained reader finds a passage [or scene] describing a sexual event or a violent one in a work of fiction [or on screen] that is not aimed at the pornography-consuming market.  Unaccustomed to reading at all, this would-be censor can only understand that he sees a sex act and cannot see what purpose that depiciton of evil might serve in the rest of the book [movie]."

Very few movies are moral or Good from beginning to end.  If any "subtle" or "amoral" issues exist in the film and seem to overshadow any Good, it probably isn't worth seeing again or recommending to others (no matter how funny or well-written it may be). Reading further in Moroni we find that,

12 ...the devil is an enemy unto God, and fighteth against him continually, and inviteth and enticeth to sin, and to do that which is evil continually.

13 But behold, that which is of God inviteth and enticeth to do good continually; wherefore, every thing which inviteth and enticeth to do good, and to love God, and to serve him, is inspired of God.

14 Wherefore, take heed, my beloved brethren, that ye do not judge that which is evil to be of God, or that which is good and of God to be of the devil.

15 For behold, my brethren, it is given unto you to judge, that ye may know good from evil; and the way to judge is as plain, that ye may know with a perfect knowledge, as the daylight is from the dark night.

Verses 14 and 15 are a bit disconcerting.  Judging the good from the bad isn't always as plain as night and day, dusk and dawn can be easily mistaken if we don't know the direction the light is coming from.  This brings us to verse 16, which tells us exactly how to make this a "plain" process,

16 For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God.

When we are clean and pure and able to house the Spirit of Christ, being able to judge good from evil will be "as plain ... as the daylight is from the dark night."

Now, to bring you back to the main point of this article, what is a good way to analyze the evil in film?  It may serve useful to use Card's categorization, though I'll definitely need to read through it some more and think about how I would apply it.  The one difficult category for me is "enacting evil."  I understand what pornography is and realize that there is some pornography that is obviously pornography, but there are other images/text that aren't quite as definite (as well as similar discrepancies in classification of violence, profanity, etc.).  I'll save this topic for a separate post.  In the mean time, what do you think about what's been written here?  Is it ok to rate the morality of a movie on a scale?  Should it be divided into good or evil?  Perhaps a mixture of the two would be good - maybe a show has somewhat of a moral message, but a stand should be taken to either recommend or not recommend it for others to watch.

Cool Hand Luke

Synopsis

This is the story of a man who fought against the system. Lucas Jackson gets thrown into a work camp for "destroying municipal property," and even while there continues to fight against anything that gives him rules to follow. The men in the camp admire him; and even Dragline, the assumed leader of the prisoners, gives Luke his respect. Luke gets tired of being the only one who seems to care about breaking free, even God seems to have abandoned him. Read on to find out why this is one of my favorite movies.

Entertainment Value - A

For the longest time this was my absolute favorite movie and it still ranks among the top ten. Paul Newman's and George Kennedy's performances are awesome. The multiple attempts at escape from the prison never get boring. You never get tired of the constant change and rebellion Luke introduces to the prison. Some people can't seem to make it through the first part of the movie, and I can't understand why! Mostly people who have a hard time watching anything that isn't newer than the 1980's (though that's even pushing it for some!).

Moral Value - Failure to Communicate? - 5

Why is this movie the theme for our blog? For one, it was one of my favorite movies and "Cool Hand Critics" had a nice ring to it. From there, we were able to introduce other elements of the movie into our reviews (World Shakers, Nights In The Box, etc.). Here are some of the reasons why it is among my favorite movies:

Unwritten Rules

At the beginning of the film, when Luke first comes to the camp and the other prisoners are playing cards, he makes pretty clear his disdain for rule makers. Dragline and the other prisoners are explaining all the "unwritten" rules of the prison and that Dragline is basically the king of the coop. Luke just laughs and when confronted, he responds that there just seem to be "a lot of guys laying down rules and regulations."

Unwritten societal rules (e.g., might makes right, herd mentality, etc.) sometimes keep us from progressing, whereas true rules (i.e., commandments, covenants, etc.) should help us in our progression as human beings and children of God. This isn't the case for all unwritten rules (e.g., etiquette, chivalrous manners, etc.), but we need to do more than just follow someone blindly like most of the prisoners ended up doing with Dragline and later with Luke. We need to live/know for ourselves and understand what impact our decisions and actions have on our spiritual and physical well being.

"Nothing Can Be a Real Cool Hand"

Luke and Dragline had a boxing match and even though Luke was very badly beat-up, he never gave up; in fact he told Dragline, "you're gonna have to kill me." Luke later ends up winning a poker game with a hand of nothing and states that, "Sometimes nothin' can be a real cool hand." Dragline admits that he was beat in the fight with nothing just as Koko was in the poker game (meaning even though Luke didn't beat Dragline physically, Luke sure didn't lose).

Sometimes by just standing your ground, no matter what the odds are against you, you can come out on top. This constancy exhibited in one's faith and conviction of principles or standards can define a person's being.

"Get Out There Yourself!"

After one of the many times Luke escapes the prison and is brought back (bloody and beaten) all the men can do nothing but comment on what a grand ol' time he must have had while he was out (particularly because Luke had sent them a picture of himself between two attractive ladies, revealed at this time to be a phony). Exasperated he yells, "Stop feedin' off me! Get out there yourself! I can't breathe!"

How often do we live our lives through other people's experiences instead of getting up/out and doing things for ourselves?

Later on, after Luke has been "broken" by the bosses (forced to labor to the point of physical exhaustion and beaten brutally in the process) and enters the sleeping quarters where all the prisoners (who sat and watched the breaking process) are gathered, he collapses. Not a single person went to him to help him out. They were disillusioned by the breaking of the high and mighty man they once esteemed as their hero. Luke was never a real person in their eyes; they invented a person who was invulnerable, a superhero that could never break. When he broke they became the selfish, brutal, despicable creatures men tend to be when they see good men fall. They were too weak (too smart?) to try to break out of prison themselves, to push the rule makers to the limit, to discover who they really could be, making them all the more happy to see strong people fall. It makes them feel good about themselves, even if they aren't truly happy (still locked up, never having attempted to get out in the open).

Failure to Communicate

During Luke's last escape attempt, Dragline can't help but come along with him. Dragline's as giddy as a school boy to see that Luke was "never" broken. But Luke corrects him and tells him he was as broke as anybody could have been. After Dragline starts planning all the world shaking he, Luke, and Koko are gonna do when they're all out Luke says that he's "done enough world shaking for a while." At this news Dragline doesn't know how to react, he begins to regret ever leaving the camp realizing that he only had a few years left if he would have stayed put. (The disillusionment sets in again.)

Luke approaches a church and decides to enter it and that it's time he has a talk with God. He wants to blame God (not angrily but questioningly) for his situation. Luke feels that God has things "fixed" against him and at the same time made him like he was, so how was he supposed to fit in? When does it all end? What does God have in store for him? What should he do now? Luke then gets on his knees to ask and concedes that he's a hard case and ends up supposing that he'll have to find his own way (not having received any communication from God).

This failure to communicate comes up a couple of times in the film, and is up there with some of the best known lines in cinematic history. There seems to be a lot of failed communication, a lot of "unwritten rules" that seem to catch people off guard left and right. You could argue that it wasn't God that was messing up the communication, but Luke. He never wanted to submit to any kind of authority, and he was constantly running away from it or flat out pushing back. Even Luke says "there ain't a whole lot worth listening to" (specifically referring to all the rules and regulation being put out). How many times do we say we want an answer but do nothing to make sure we are prepared to hear what we need to be told?

With regards to this movie review site, I hope we can communicate some of the insights we receive on the quality and moral value of films that we see. We in no way assume our ideas and interpretations are the only way to view the content of the films, but invite others to comment and help us mold our philosophy in a non-threatening way.

Do Movie Critics Matter?

An article on FirstThings.com does a good job of explaining the importance of movie critics in our culture today.   An excerpt from the article supports what we're trying to do on this website:

"It is the film critic’s constant struggle to get filmgoers and filmmakers to understand that politics and morality are still part of the artistic equation, even at the movies.

Without using morality, politics, and cultural continuity as measures of value, there is no way to appreciate the state of the culture or to maintain intelligence. Without criticism, we will have achieved naivete."

They also mention the damage that amature critics and the "Internet's free-for-all" can cause to "the concept of film criticism"

"By offering an alternative deluge of fans’ notes, angry sniping, half-baked impressions, and clubhouse amateurism, the Internet’s free-for-all has helped to further derange the concept of film criticism performed by writers who have studied cinema as well as related forms of history, science, and philosophy. This also differs from the venerable concept of the “gentleman amateur” whose gracious enthusiasms for art forms he himself didn’t practice expressed a valuable civility and sophistication, a means of social uplift. Internet criticism has, instead, unleashed a torrent of deceptive knowledge—a form of idiot savantry—usually based in the unquantifiable “love of movies” (thus corrupting the French academic’s notion of cinephilia)."

Hopefully by our continuing study of religious principles, ancient philosophers, current and cultural events, history, etc., the reviews on this site can become more meaningful to our society.

Movies that Invite Us to Do Good

Welcome to our new movie critiquing blog. We tend to watch quite a few movies in our home, and I was beginning to agree with my wife that it wasn't the most productive activity. This blog is a result of my brainstorming on how we can make it more productive and meaningful. So in a way, it's me rationalizing that there's no need to cut back on movies, though my wife would continue to disagree there but is a little more accepting of it with this purpose in mind.

We're not here to do your standard movie critiquing of solely analyzing the acting, plot, visual effects, and other "surface" elements of films; we would like to dive a little deeper. Even a little deeper than sites like commonsensemedia.org or kids-in-mind.com that report on profanity, nudity, sex, and other inappropriate content.

Moroni, an ancient prophet who lived on the American continent around 400 B.C. stated, "the Spirit of Christ is given to every man" (even movie script writers and directors), everyone has the capability to uplift us spiritually. Moroni continues, "every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God." The opposite is also true, "whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God, then ye may know with perfect knowledge that it is of the devil...." In modern-day revelation the Lord told Joseph Smith, "that which doth not edify is not of God, and is darkness." (To read further on either of these topics read Moroni 7 in the Book of Mormon, and Doctrine and Covenants 50, respectively).

We would like to determine whether the movies we watch are edifying. Inviting us "to do good" is much more than the feeling of whether or not we liked the flick, it's how we feel spiritually after watching it. Would we have felt comfortable having the Savior sit through the movie with us?

The posts we put here will describe in more detail how we felt either spiritually uplifted or deprived after watching the movie, if the movie contains wholesome morals or gospel related lessons, and how we can use these lessons to teach our families presently and in the future. We would love to hear your input as well, I'm sure our opinions will not be conclusive.