Count me in as one of the people who were COMPLETELY shocked when I found about about a married couple turning away from such scenes!! Great article as usual!!

I, too, refuse to watch sex scenes in movies or television.  I don’t see them as exciting, but rather as something profoundly mocking.

That said, reading this:  “I refuse to be put in the mood by some depilated Hollywood pretty boy feigning ecstasy under the Klieg lights”, I wondered where is the line drawn?

Does this extend to, say, music?  When the kids are in bed, and everything’s finally quiet, if the “mood is set” with music, there’s a specific sort of music selected, right?  Al Green is going to be selected over, say, Whitesnake, for a reason.

How is using music to set the mood for an intimate moment with one’s spouse different from using a movie to do so?  Is it different?

Sorry for two comments, but I just HAVE TO say this. I wonder if Neal, who was fired for refusing to do certain sex scenes, would have been fired had he said:“I’m gay, I don’t want to do sex scenes with women.” Everyone would have said:“Oh how cute, we totally understand, someone get a double.”...and firing him would have been labeled Homophobia. In Lebanon, I have seen only ONE kiss on national TV!... but then they make up for it by displaying girls as wimpy boneless fish…or smart sexy evil s.o.b.s who want to kill everyone, and guys as THE hot, mighty, filthy rich,controlling a**hole!!

I have had to kiss a fellow under theatrical circumstances, though, granted, the theatrical circumstances were not particularly erotic scenarios. For me, and for my fellow actor, it was simply a piece of business to be gotten through—also, they were nice guys, but still. Actors are doing a job, and though that job may involve emotions, it involves enough other considerations to keep one’s mind busy (am I hitting my cue? Am I in the right pool of light? Why did he move my prop? Someone in the audience is RUSTLING THEIR PROGRAM.) that the emotions can be kept under control.

There may be more danger, though, if one happens to be attracted to the other actor as a person, but I can’t speak to that circumstance.

I did tech a show in which my beloved kissed another woman, but it didn’t bother me all that much. I knew that neither he nor she were emotionally engaged in the moment, and as it turned out, it was a particularly unconvincing kiss (her fault, not his). Perhaps our banging on the window of the booth and yelling, “Go big or stay at home!” didn’t help.

Good article! For me, it helped to do some reading and research on how mens’ visual memory works. While about 10% of women are visual, almost all guys are. I’d heard men are visual, but always assumed that meant they just look at a image or movie scene and think “oh, she looks hot.” Once I understood that mens’ memory is more like a visual rolodex of video clips and images they can be called up at an time (or pop up against their will) I was much more careful about the types of movies I ask my husband to watch with me. Do I really want those other women playing over in his brain when we’re in the middle of a romantic moment? If he’s working so hard to focus on me, why would I drag him through a visual minefield? We, too, look away or voice over innapropriate scenes with the most ridiculous comic dialogue we can create. The book “For Women Only” (and it’s partner volume “For Men Only”) gives a great intro on this topic and others for Christian couples. I think we assume a lot about how someone else thinks based on how our own mind works - even if you grow up with mostly males, as I did. My husband, on the other hand, was shocked to learn just how non-visual most women are, given how hard-wired that is in his brain.

@Cari…. I think since liking another man’s music is completely ok, and no matter how much you love the music, you’re always loving the MUSIC, it is completely different from setting the mood by liking another man’s BODY…. It is called sins of the FLESH…. not sins of the MUSIC!! Would you mind if your husband said:“Oh how I love Celine Dion’s voice?”  now compare it to if he had said:“Oh how I love Celine Dion’s legs”!!! Am I making a point?

Mrs. Darwin, “Go big or stay home.”  I am laughing so hard I am rolling on the floor.  Adding humor to that moment was exactly the best thing to do.

This is an interesting topic.  I think many movies that are otherwise quite good and wholesome go too far with the sex scenes, but a tender kiss or embrace?  I find that lovely, and hard to delete from a storyline if much of the story is about love.

Very interesting….am I cheating on my husband if I keep watching the seduction scene from Walk the Line?  Or how about watching Brad Pitt in Legends of the Fall (not a great film), or Guy Pierce in Memento? There is no denying his physique.  How about going to Firenze and checking out Michelangelo’s David in all his superhuman, masculine studliness.  I think this gets one into a crazy place rather fast, but then again, the slippery slope falls the other way too…. not sure…curious to see all the responses.

YAY!!!! Someone else hates “Fireproof” almost as much as I do!!!

Sarah,
I just read For Young Women Only, in the hopes of giving it to a friend with a wayward teen daughter, but I found much of the research to be biased. Not sure what it means exactly to be a visual person.  I fit your description to a T, and see history, hockey games and anything that has happened in the past or that I am planning for the future as a film running in my head.  My husband does NOT think this way, and can somehow listen to a book on tape without every generating a mental picture in his head.  However, he is (probably) just as easily visually stimulated as any guy…it is because they are just easily stimulated….not because they are more visual.  They are wired for promiscuity…(the book seems to allude to this) but it is not because they are “more visual” than women.

Also, that book never accurately described many of the young women I knew in high school and college: girls who knew their effect on guys and loved the power and attention it gave them.  The author portrays all girls as “shocked” at how men and boys are thinking about them sexually most of the time, particularly if they are wearing sexy clothes.  This is just fiction: many many girls are FULLY aware of the effect their clothing choices are having on boys and men.  Maybe some are not, but a significant group are.  By pretending that all girls and women just want to be “pretty” or “cute” the author misses the mark.

For live theater, generally speaking, I don’t think there’s as much of a problem.  So long as both partners in the scene, and their respective spouse(s) are find with a kiss, I don’t think it’s a problem for ME.  That could change of course, depending on the person.

But knowing more modern pieces, there’s WAY more to consider with live theater than kissing.  At my catholic university there was a show featuring a stripper doing table dances and VAST amounts of pornography as props.  As a drama student, I had to be involved in the show.  I would have been fine if the porn wasn’t real, but just covers on other magazines, but no, the professors had us obtain real crap from a porn shop (thankfully, i didn’t have to go).  and I was too young and cowardly to stand up to it.

Another show we did had simulated nudity.  It was an Adam and Eve type of story so it definitely fit, but how awkward.  It was one I was not involved in, mainly because I was doing some outside shows for credit, but two of my classmates were.  Of course, now they are expecting their second child together, still unmarried.

Rachel, you raise a good point, which is whether a show has any intrinsic merit at all and should be watched in the first place. In either of those cases, was there enough value in the show to justify the nudity? Did the nudity express some truth of the human condition?  I once saw a performance of Wit, a one-woman show about a professor dying of ovarian cancer, in which in the very last scene the actress stands nude to portray the character’s death and rising above the degradation of her body by disease. It was very powerful, moving, and honest (and brief) and not the slightest bit libidinous. I was sitting next to my fiance, and it didn’t bother me a bit that he should see that woman’s body. The beauty of the moment came not from fantasy or idealism (the actress was in her late fifties or sixties and didn’t try to disguise the fact) but from truth.

But, to pick an entirely opposite example: is it particularly inspiring that Kirk Cameron chose to kiss his own wife in Fireproof if the movie as a whole was a saccharine piece of fluff? Did it help the movie transcend its limitations or make it a better piece of art?

“I once startled someone (really, she was extremely startled) by describing how, when my husband and I watch movies or TV, we sometimes reach scenes that make us shield our eyes or make mood-killing noises until the scene is over.”

Hah!

I thought my wife and I were the only people in the world that did this at home (and at the cinema)!

We are not alone after all.

:D

I’ve read that Jim Caviezel (Jesus! Heh) has refused roles that would require him to kiss or act intimately with another woman.  I’ve always though that was interesting to know about him.

A very perceptive posting.

I was on the set of a feature film I wrote this summer, and my respect for actors and what they have to put themselves through to get into some of those emotional moments really deepened. Actors - good ones, anyway - don’t act so much as become. They have to find the reality of those emotions and motivations in themselves, and sometimes after a particularly emotional or dark scene, it takes them awhile to decompress - understandably so, if you ask me.

With all that being said, I have made a commitment as a writer never to put my actors in a situation of having to do a sex scene. There are those people who say that such a thing can be done tastefully, but knowing what I know about how actors work, I just can’t bring myself to do it.

@Malahk,

What I’m trying to puzzle through is the specific use of music to set an intimate mood.  There are certain artists I like, but wouldn’t chose to put on as background music while my husband and I were making love.  There are certain artists I *would* chose for that reason, because their voice and their music overall invoke a specific response.
.
In response to your specific scenario, if my husband said “I really love Celine Dion’s voice”, if I knew that she was an artist he would chose to specifically set a romantic mood, I don’t know how I’d feel.
.
Al Green is someone whose music I find very sexy.  And his voice is one of those components to that reaction.  However, I can’t say that I find myself sexually attracted to HIM.  But is having a physical response to his voice the same thing as Mrs. Fisher’s statement about being “put in the mood by some depilated Hollywood pretty boy feigning ecstasy under the Klieg lights”?
.
I don’t expect anyone to have a concrete answer for me on this one, it’s just a notion I never considered until reading this article.

@Malakh
I apologize for not only misspelling your name in my previous comment, but also for horribly overusing the word “specific”.  Yikes.

Not to mention that sex is portrayed in such a bad taste!  No one makes love the way that typical sex scenes show, like throwing the woman against the wall and then attacking her as though raping her.  Then again, if the partners are just using each other as objects, that would be an honest portrait.

That’s a really good question, Cari.  I was going to say that visual stuff seems to be on a different plane from other types of sensory input that might stimulate you, but then I realized that I would also rebel against reading, say, a romance novel with a steamy description of a sex scene, whether it was to deliberately “put myself in the mood” or just because it’s fun to be in that mood.  And yet some songs certainly have lyrics which are just as graphic as a romance novel, but I have a hard time saying that it would be wrong to use music as a way of creating a mood.

,

One difference is that a song which might put you in the mood IF you were already making plans for the evening, would probably have no such effect on you if you were, say, riding in a cab on your way to the dentist.  But watching a certain kind of scene in a movie would likely always have a stirring effect.

,

I don’t really know.  I do think that there’s something different about actually witnessing explicit sensuous behavior, rather than just being reminded of it in other ways.  I think that there are certain things which should not be viewed even if they don’t especially move you.  I suppose if Al Green moved you to the extent that you imagined him in your bed instead of your husband, then it would be a problem.  Isn’t he dead, though?  Al Green, I mean. 

.

I agree with momofthree that you can certainly be scrupulous about this sort of thing, to the point where people feel guilty for being turned on by their own spouses, which is a horrible shame.  I think it’s one of those things that varies so very much from person to person and also as we change as individuals, that what makes the most sense is to remind ourselves periodically of what our ideal is in our sexual relationship, and to ask God to help us sand away anything which is becoming an impediment.  I’ve found that much more effective than playing the game of, “Just to be on the safe side, let’s cut out X, Y, and Z” or else, “Oh, I don’t want to be uptight—as long as everything turns out fine, then whatever gets you there is okay.”  As you said, a slippery slope on either side, and we can’t really sort it out without divine aid, in my opinion.

,

Yeah, so, clearly I have nothing to add.  Carry on.

I had a moment of panic when you mentioned Al Green may be dead.  Happily, he is not.  But the picture of him on Wikipedia is clearly a current one, and not the “slim young Al Green from 30 years ago” that I’d had in my head.
.
I don’t know. I don’t even like music all that much, but it’s an interesting point to think about.  Or it was, until I suddenly remembered this horrible feature that one of the radio stations back in Michigan would run.  It was called “Pike or Porn”, and, without going into the sad details, it would culminate with an audio clip from a porn film.  Even stripped of the visual aspects, the sound instantly caused my brain to fill in the gaps, and I couldn’t switch the station fast enough.  I imagine that people who are visually stimulated by such images, would be equally stimulated by the audio.
.
Obviously, the above event is a far cry from Mr. Green’s music.

I wonder if my libido died, because when I see stuff like that on shows or tv, I can’t help it….I roll my eyes. And then start making fun of the whole thing because I know how this love-making goes, and it doesn’t look like that. I wouldn’t want my husband to look so ardent because I rely on him to keep his sense of humor handy at times like these…Also, laughed out loud with the part about you being “too busy stabbing him.” Well put!

Also, Fireproof was a bit cheesy (and the house they live in looks totally new development, no signs of life anywhere), but I actually really liked it.

http://lettersto.us

I don’t care if some of these movies are great works of art or not.  We do not support the industry making immoral movies so we just informally boycott them.  Likewise, I tell my children not to even buy cleaned up versions of popular songs since the same money goes into the same persons’ pockets. Every time someone goes to an immoral movie, or rents it or whatever, there is money going to the people who are basically marketing sin.  Most of the people in the movie industry, from what I have heard, are not interested in the message of salvation, and are making money by making hell on earth rather than heaven on earth.  We are a happy family and miss most major movies-(I read most movie reviews however)  It is possible to be happy without the entertainment industry spoon feeding us whatever junk they care to dish out!  (P.S. We like to check out movies at www.usccb.org-Conference of Catholic Bishops-helps us make our decisions…)

I’m a seminarian in formation with a missionary community.  Just last night I was watching a program with one of the priest’s I live with.  A scene came on and it was a sort of back room speakeasy with lots of barely dressed women, lots of fully exposed breasts.  It was a bit shocking and for a moment I felt especially weirded out because I was sitting next to a priest.  But very casually he just said, “hey, let’s check out the baseball game for a few minutes til this is over.”  And we that’s we did.

I appreciated that we didn’t freak out, we didn’t over react.  We just changed the channel and came back.  In that little moment I had another one of those “ah-ha’s” that even priests and religious are just like us lay people.  Just look away or come back later ... no need to let some producer’s attempt to get better ratings become a potential occasion for sin later on down the road when those images creek back in.

Thanks, Simcha, for all you do.  You somehow make it ok to live normal lives with amazing Catholic-ness.

Geez, what’s with all the hatred of “Fireproof”?  Nobody said it was Oscar-worthy film-making, but what’s to hate about a movie that elevates faithfulness in marriage, sacrifice, love and overcoming temptation? I don’t get why so many people belittle that movie, as though the crap Hollywood churns out is soooooo excellent.

I’m going to go against the tide, and defend Fireproof a little bit.  I don’t think Cameron’s choice to use his wife as a kissing double makes a difference to the over-all film either way.  Yes, it was a saccharine film with lots of stilted acting, but think about what it was trying to do.

Fireproof was trying to be a PG film about a lot of issues that marriages face today (selfishness, pornography, emotional shut-down) without mocking the institution of marriage and encouraging a Godly marriage rather than a marriage based on “my own personal/sexual fulfillment” or “a big party wedding”.  You are just not going to find Hollywood green-lighting movies with those themes, at least not without throwing in lots of gratuitous sex scenes and gross out humor earning an R rating.

I think we Catholics are really good at pointing out societal problems (promiscuity, gratuitous sex and violence in movies, anti-Christian themes), but I think the Evangelicals are way ahead of us in trying to offer practical alternatives even if they do come off as saccharine and imperfect. 

There may be Catholic equivalents to the Harris brothers (I Kissed Dating Goodbye, Do Hard Things, etc), but they aren’t even on the edge of the mainstream radar.  Where are the Catholic production companies offering fictional movies that reflect Catholic values?  And is the production quality at EWTN that much better than that of the Sherwood Baptish Church film ministry (that made Fireproof)?  EWTN is nice enough, but how many repeats of the same five interview-style apologetics shows and reruns of similar shows from the 70’s does someone watch before they want to tear out their eyeballs?  And the production quality of the kids shows on ETWN?

There is an untapped market to set up a family network (or integrate into EWTN) full of television shows with fictional settings that reflect Christian values.  Or what about reality shows that follow a large Catholic family (in contrast to the Duggars), or a priest/deacon/monk/nun, or Catholic singles involved in a large ministry?  Then maybe we wouldn’t have to constantly avert our eyes or make the children leave the room every time the adults want to watch television.

Obvious sex scenes, extreme violence and raunchy sexual jokes are something that many Catholics say they don’t watch…until I mention that must mean they eschew Shakespeare.  So they either really don’t read/watch Shakespeare (and I don’t believe anyone can have a real education without him) or they just aren’t getting him.  My point is: it CAN be done, when it’s written right.

Acting isn’t for the thin-skinned; you’ve got to be extremely brave to do what good acting requires.  And yes, that means really knowing what those feelings are, feeling them, in the moment.  Method acting via Strasberg, Adler, Meisner, Hagen, et. al. can go way too far to the point of self-indulgence, but nothing strips real feelings of their reality than a fakeness, a sentimentalism, which ends up being bad acting.  Theatre is real.  That’s why, to me, it’s superior over film as a performing art.

Having said that, I don’t even bother showing up for about 85% of all auditions that would suit me, because of the garbage that’s out there and the obscene, homosexual, liberal agenda/propaganda that is attached to most new works, at least in NYC.  It’s that bad; you have no idea.

That was one of the sweetest things I’ve ever read on this topic.

I have struggled with this.  When you wrote about your husband keeping that great power in reserve for you alone my heart fluttered. That is so beautiful.  (oops it sorta rev’d the engine) My poor husband, who had the bad timing to come in the room to get something, was commandeered, seated, and I read the whole piece to him.  He nodded very seriously and said “that’s the way that it should be”.

Is it wrong to be moved by a smoldering romance that is artfully executed….?? Hmmmmmm.  I love the idea of averting our eyes (and ears!), but I’m not 100% convinced that when done in good taste, it is what God would ask of us.  Please convince me if I’m wrong!!!  All things offered for pure love IS WORTHY.

As for my family, let me start with the fact that we have original art on the wall with naked women painted in the classical style.

We listen to pop music on the radio (half of my kids are teens and 20s)  My two-year-old yells at me to crank it up louder, and literally rocks out to the likes of BRITNEY.  I know. (ick)  But some of it I really, actually enjoy.  Check out the pro-life message of Lil Wayne “How to Love” youtube, (disable any snob filters)

After we say our morning offering, we crank the tunes through three stops at three schools.  Yes, they hear nasty and double meaning lyrics.  If they are “over the top” we change it.  Sometimes we discuss them, and yes, we all agree that Katy Perry is the WORST, for sneaking her “go do it” teen sex message in a bubble gum wrapper!  They all solemnly nodded when I told them that her “no regrets, just love” message is totally bogus, and that she would meet the babies that are aborted because of it!

My eighteen-year-old and twenty-year-old told me to go see “Bridesmaids” last summer.  Yes it was a silly, gross at times, SNLish comedy, that made me laugh for almost a straight hour (mea culpa?) My heart DID sink at the first sex scene, knowing my kids watched it.  In the final analysis, it pointed out that those who allow themselves to be used are treated to the double indignity that it isn’t even “sexy” at ALL.  That was the point.  It made fun of those who are stupid enough to lose their dignity for stupid reasons.

Please enlighten me to a better way if you think this approach crosses the line.  I gave up on trying to stay in a zip lock bag a while ago.

What a great article. Yes it is very important to display custody of the eyes. Our society has forgotten the virtue of modesty. It’s such a shame and the results are quite severe.

What about novels? I’ve mostly given up on the Adult section of the library (essentially everything but the children’s section) and stick to Young Adult and Juvenile Fiction instead. It seems that nearly every time I venture into the rest of the library I end up with a book with completely unnecessary gratuitous sex scenes. It’s easy enough to skim until I get to the real story again, but it makes me annoyed with the whole book.

All things offered for pure love ARE worthy…:)

Nowadays, I mostly watched movies made before 1960.  It is just easier.  Even, this way, I still avert my eyes at times, and at other times, I realize that I probably should have averted my eyes, but didn’t.

My viewing habits have, in the words of the old Virginia Slim ads, “come a long way baby.”  The older I get, the more I hew to the straight and narrow (and I’m 43 for the record).  At this point, I’m largely disinterested in movies that earn the R rating (as well as suggestive PG movies for that matter).  I sort of use the following test: if I would feel unconfortable watching it with my children (ages 1 to 16) I probably don’t need to watch it at all.  No work of art is so edifying that it is worth the distraction or feeling of hypocrisy.
Many films can convey mature content in a way that does not offend young eyes.  I recently watched Gone with the Wind for the first time since childhood and was somewhat surprised by how much of the story I’d missed when I saw it through the relatively more innocent eyes of my young self.

I’m going to stick up for Fireproof too.  As others said, yes the acting and production leaves a bit to be desired, but the message was good.  Simcha’s words, however, make think there is something more she dislikes about it than that… that it is not Catholic maybe?

@ Anna Lisa… yes I will support you for teaching your children how to discern what they encounter in the world.  While, as a parents, some may desire to roll their kids in Catholic bubble wrap to protect them from every unholy thing… i think your kids will be stronger because they’ll know to question what they are hearing/seeing/ doing… and faithfully work their way out of it.

Personally, I’m over 40 and single…  Catholic my whole life…. and I have a particular ubber-Catholic friend who has these strange ideas that there are men out there who value women like me…  who won’t have sex until they are married (ha!)  - and are just dying for a woman to bring them back to church.    Yeah, I’d like to think so - but I encounter about 98.9995% of the opposite!!!!

Hey, we liked Fireproof. It was edifying to marriage, and quite funny in places. There was an extremely touching forgiveness scene in there that brought my daughter and I to tears. So, if you didn’t watch it I don’t understand how you loathe it so. It ironically goes with your concept of a one man woman that us girls love so much.

Great post, but your comments on “Fireproof” were totally uncalled for and really detracted from your message.  Anyone who puts effort into spreading the message that marriage is a holy alliance and worth fighting for has got my support.

The fact is that sex scenes in movies are almost always nothing but soft porn.  I think we’ve become inured to it gradually, but that is what it is.  The purpose of the detailed portrayal is to arouse lust in the viewer.  There are certain things which shouldn’t be portrayed in detail, either in writing or visually.  An example would be Evelyn Waugh’s Brideshead Revisited—in the novel, the two characters go into a room together, and you gather the rest.  In the movie, you watch them having sex.  Waugh had the taste not to attempt to get his readers all hot and bothered; the movie makers did not, although the film was well done otherwise.  Another example, I was just noticing, is the Poirot series.  I have always enjoyed that series, though I noticed that as the years passed, there were more and more raunchy scenes.  I just had the fortune to come upon the very first season, and in all ten episodes, though the *subject matter* often included adultery, love triangles, and so on, the producers back then had the taste not to give us visuals for those things.  They thought viewers were intelligent enough to understand what is going on.  Shakespeare implies things, and makes even overt references to sex, but he doesn’t have people having sex on stage.  I hope to teach my children discernment, but part of that is protecting them and protecting myself from disturbing images *so that* when we do encounter the images, it isn’t old hat and something familiar, but something which shocks and impels one to turn away.

Ditto, Siobhan! My family (including teen sons) LOVED Fireproof and watch the DVD again on their own. Why bash one of the few movies that hold up marriage and commitment??

My two cents worth on how getting “in the mood” with music is different than either a movie or a book: as a rule, music is not a representational art.  Isn’t that the reason it can’t so easily be pornographic, even when it does arouse romantic or sexual feelings?  Sure, it accesses our emotions, but it does it somewhere a little more sublimated, I think.  (Of course, the horrible Latino dance music where you can hear the singer grunting and writhing is a different story!)

Rebecca:  Agreed about Shakespeare.  Also, I think the fact that the female roles in Elizabethan theater were played by men/boys probably put a limit on the degree to which on-stage passions were aroused.  At least I hope so.  Of course, modern productions of the Bard try hard to sexualize the works as much as possible to make them suit modern tastes.  A pity.  And unnecessary.  The words can speak for themselves.

And I’d also like put in a plug for Fireproof as well.  I enjoyed as much as, nay, more than what I typically see out of Holywood.  I read than many of thee actors were not, in fact, actors, but real people playing themselves.  This made me like the movie more.  I suspect Greydanus’ review may have prejudiced Ms. Fisher.  I enjoy and respect Greydanus’ reviews and will always read what writes before seeing a film.  But I take exception to his review of Fireproof.

Lalalalalalalala - all my kids know when we start singing it, they cover their eyes and join in.  In our house it means during inappropriate scenes in what we thought were PG-13 movies but are actually borderline R (we didn’t preview them - our bad…).  But it can also include commercials about the Pill, feminine products and inappropriate beer ads….

The typical reply we hear from our kids is a groaning….“ugh, we didn’t know this was a kissing movie!”  We get that during any kissing now…We get the last laugh when our kids catch us in the kitchen giving smooches.  We love hearing them groan - “ugh, we didn’t know this was a kissing marriage!!”

It is - always will be!

This may be off the subject, but I’m old enough to remember when kissing on film was actually kissing and passionate kissing actually looked like passionate kissing.  Whether it’s right or wrong to watch such osculation, I have to say that now (and by now, I think I mean since AIDS) what you actually see on the screen is people who are trying to look as if they’re kissing (usually passionately), but who are obviously trying to avoid contracting a disease. It’s almost scary. What a turn-off.  Am I the only one who notices this?

Interesting take on tv and film scenes.  I love costumed dramas with their lingering looks,  touching hands, building tension and longing as opposed to lust.  Oh and at the end they Kiss.  Romance doesn’t have to show all to build tension.  With my kids it wasn’t so much a don’t look at sex policy as it was look at love.  Pointing out the few really good examples and making sure we saw them.  pointing out the inconsistencies and obvious untruthes.  lLike those 6 friends would have all stayed friends after Ross and Rachel slept together and then broke it off with the lingering question of was it infidelity if we were on “a break”? Didn’t like the contempt for Fireproof though.  The sneer was beneath the writer.
I a simpleton, fell for it.  Sure it was cheesy a little over the top but as film makers those guys have let their enthusiasm for the subject matter take over any cynicism and fear of embarrassment.  they just love Jesus.  personally what A gift I have found from my Saviour who can be a little cheesy and over the top in love with little old me.

I only watch what I can control, and it is music on YouTube.  My books deal with evil, but it is always resolved.  I try to keep custody of the eyes, and, following my Rule, had to give up television a long time ago.  I don’t go to movies at all anymore, because of the feigned love and sex.  It has increased my chastity and made me long for the pleasures of Heaven, and not Earth.

@crazylikeknoxes:  I actually haven’t read Greydanus’ review yet, but was thinking of doing my own review of the movie(after finally watching it, of course!).  I’ve been hesitant because so many people are unable to accept that a good message can be delivered in a bad way.  When I critique something made with good intentions, I invariably get accused of “tearing down people who are just trying to do some good for a change,” and it gets old.  If you present a feature film for people to watch, then you have to put on your big boy pants and be willing to get an honest review from people who care about the craft of moviemaking. 

.

Sorry, this heat is not directed at you—it’s obviously a topic which irritates me.  Maybe I should just stay away from it.

Last chance, my friend.  Do you want to have a actual conversation with someone (in which case you will be allowed to continue posting) or do I have to spend the rest of my weekend deleting you?  I can’t block you until Monday, unfortunately, but I will do so bright and early if that’s how you want it to be.

Please add me to the list of Fireproof fans. First of all, my husband and I always try to support good Christian films (we’re going to The Way this weekend). You might know that Fireproof is produced by a Christian congregation - written and directed by the pastors who I think are brothers. Most of the actors are members of the congregation. The technical aspects of the film (especially the lighting) and the acting aren’t great, but the screenplay was really amazing. I felt that they were able to capture the dysfunction and also the beauty of the marriage relationship in a profound way - as probably only those who have heard others share their hearts and souls could.

And before you bring it up:  yes, this IS censorship, just like it’s censorship when I chase away dogs who poop in my yard.

Simcha, you have a very gifted way with words. I appreciate your invitation to elevate life. That is beautiful.  Don’t worry about “censorship” concerning those who post “one liners” in a snarky mood.  We can read between the lines when they deliver them. You have earned your stripes.  There is nothing wrong with being a defender of content AND art.  I’m looking forward to that in heaven, and always love it when I encounter it here too.  As for the movie in question, which I have never heard of, I guess I’ll see it and tolerate the cheese to get the “feel good”, and hopefully an edifying message.

P.S. I always demand a “free pass” when I’m in my third trimester, for being able to call a spade a spade without apologies.

Oh, sorry, the “censorship” line was directed at “ifindthishumerus,” who has been posting more prolifically as “Justin Case” on another post—so I wasn’t responding to a drive-by one-liner, but to an incredibly pointless conversation that I got sucked into when I could have been spending my time at Cake Wrecks!

On Fireproof, ok the Sacrement of Holy Matrimony is something very good and worth fighting for. However, this film smoked of sola scriptura, and evangelicalisms. The ‘Love Dare’ proposition is, maybe well intended but also smokes of private interpretation of ‘Gods plan for mariage’.  I can see how in some cases it could even be harmful. Take away the positive message about marriage…it stinks so sorry, thumbs down here.
~
Thumbs up for Jim Caviezel. As (kb) stated, he opts out of scripts that require him to kiss or act intimate with women other than his wife. His new tv series is awesome too.

Simcha:  Don’t stay away, just watch the damn thing.  If you find it to be an example of what the Boy Wonder might call, “Holy crap, Batman,” then call it out.  Or better yet, let the Jerk do your dirty work for you.  When I said I wanted to put in a plug for Fireproof, I didn’t mean they had good intentions.  In my humble opinion, I thought they made an effective film, not high art, but I enjoyed it more than some other recent films (Tangled and Captain America) that I’ve seen.  De gustibus non disputandum.

What did I ever do to deserve Fireproof?

I don’t watch sex scenes because sex is supposed to be private. You’re not supposed to watch, whether it’s real or depicted. Whether it’s well done or poorly done. It doesn’t even have to affect you sexually. It’s just private. I also object to actors passionately kissing. I don’t think actors should be doing it if they’re not married to one another. I admit that I don’t necessarily turn away when this happens, but when I see it, and think about it, I say to myself: that person is kissing another person who’s not his/her spouse. And the scandal is compounded when one of the actors is married. I don’t care if it’s “just a job”. Sensual [in the Thomistic sense] bodily affection that should not be “a job”. Rule of thumb: If you’d be jealous that your is S/O doing it behind your back, it shouldn’t be done on camera.

It does strike me as a tremendous shame that a kiss should be “just business.”  (I encounter this to some extent in my job.  I have to have at least a little professional detachment at all the weddings I go to.  I can’t gush or cry.  I also sit and grit my teeth through kooky things sometimes.  And in real life I would not be refusing celebratory champagne!)
-
I might have an interesting perspective on music.  Most of the music I listen to doesn’t have words.  I’m not sure I would want music, actually—again, for better or worse, it reminds me of work, although it’s work I love.  I couldn’t risk going, “Oh great, here come those stupid tenths that I spent an hour on yesterday.”
-
Mair, they will follow the money if nothing else.  That is one way you can exert your own influence.  Wait for the review, go to see the ones that are art, avoid the others, and encourage your friends to do the same.  Even a very stupid producer will get the message at the box office.  I’m just saying, don’t blame the industry if you’ve given up on it.

Jerk: I didn’t mean to imply that you deserve it.  Rather, maybe it deseves you.

I do avert my eyes if the depiction is meant to glorify/linger on, or in some other way objectify the subject matter, the subject matter being something private. 
__
This almost always means something sexy (although I rarely watch much that will have this but, for example, we are watching The Wire right now and obviously there is lots of eye-averting happening there.)  HOWEVER this impulse to avert also happens at other rare times; the two examples that come to mind for me are certain CSI portrayals of the effects of violence on the body (the reason I no longer watch it: it seemed like it had created a kind of crime-flesh pornography) and also when there are lingering close-ups of people using drugs, particularly shooting heroin.  There is a “secret looking thrill” from the brain chemistry that gets engaged that can be very addictive, and these objectifying types of gazes are what flip the switch, I think.  The surrounding circumstances of the show help set you up for it: CSI gives you lots of cleavage.  I am not sure if the heroin-shooting bothers me because it is itself on the same plane as the others or because I react strongly against objectifying or in any way glorifying this act of personal desperation.  That has at least partly to do with my own struggles.
__
I can watch similar scenes and know instinctively when one seems “private” and another doesn’t but the factors going into this are many.  For example, film and television give one much more of the illusion of intimacy with the subject matter and the characters than, say, live theater.  Or looking at a robust and beautiful sculpture or painting.  The reason for the thing (objectifying or transcendent?) makes the difference when evaluating its self-contained worth as a work of art.  However, something that is otherwise neutral or even beautiful might still be a stumbling block for many of us.  A person struggling with sexually objectifying others might not be able to watch a pg-13 film’s visual cleavage humor without temptation.  I will never forget my boyfriend and me trying to watch “Requiem for a Dream” when he was trying to stay clean and him rushing to the tv, shaking, to turn it off after about 30 minutes.

“There is a “secret looking thrill” from the brain chemistry that gets engaged that can be very addictive, and these objectifying types of gazes are what flip the switch, I think.  The surrounding circumstances of the show help set you up for it: CSI gives you lots of cleavage.”

.

Very perceptive.  I noticed this, too, especially when we watched a lot of CSI-type shows—and it did start to spill over into real life in a way which alarmed and disgusted me.  I noticed that I got the same guilty/thrilling temptation to click on news stories about child abuse or gruesome crimes as I did when I saw a headline that was overtly, attractively sexy.  I’m relieved to know that it is possible to re-sensitize yourself.

.

Some people will avoid sexually explicit imagery that romanticizes or glorifies promiscuity or adultery, but make an argument that some movies or shows are graphic for other, legitimate reasons.  I have argued this myself (the excellent movie Eastern Promises, for instance, is about as graphic as you can get, but its goal is certainly not to put you in the mood!) but it is also possible for an overload of unpleasant graphic sexuality to have a different but equally damaging effect on the soul. 

.

I think we can easily fool ourselves about what we can personally handle.  Let’s not forget that the devil is not particular which garbage chute he tries to nudge us down!  It all leads to the same pit.

What do I think? This could easily be a column in the National Catholic Reporter, that’s what. What intellectual gymnastics to justify sexually explicit scenes in R rated movies! Sheesh! Just be honest with yourself. Brother. For all your going on about swooning when your husband redirects his gaze, throwing “Fire Proof” under the bus is a funny way to show it. Look around Mass next Sunday. Nearly half those men in line for Communion have used pornography in the last 7 days. Very few women have any idea at all of the seductive power of these sexual images for men and to simply say “well, my husband simply covers his eyes (and uses the time to adjust his halo) and voila!” betrays this great naivete.

“...but it is also possible for an overload of unpleasant graphic sexuality to have a different but equally damaging effect on the soul.
.
I think we can easily fool ourselves about what we can personally handle.  Let’s not forget that the devil is not particular which garbage chute he tries to nudge us down!  It all leads to the same pit.”

Totally agree.  Perhaps over time this phenomenon impacts the non-porn consuming parts of life and furthers spiritual decay at the level we seem to wring our hands so much about.  Plus, all thrill eventually loses itself.  You have to find other ways to push the “thrill button” and my theory is that CSI was a major way for that to happen for people looking for fleshly horizons to explore in the comfort and socially-acceptable safety of the weeknight prime time hours.

I think that Chardin illustrates beautifully one way in which Christians engage in objectification on an everyday level:

“Look around Mass next Sunday. Nearly half those men in line for Communion have…”

Granted, the command to look at others as flat images representing something useful for your own devices is used here to illustrate some sort of point.  But does it transcend itself thereby?

This idea that passion and kissing and violence cannot be done in a way that good Catholics can watch is the inverse thinking that we should only watch sugary stuff that will send us into diabetic coma. 

Thanks, SUZANNE, for the simple dismissal of my profession/art.  And sorry, but I again bring up Shakespeare.  And as an aside I think the biggest problem here is that most people only read Shakepeare; they don’t watch him, which is how he’s meant to be imbibed. 

For purist directors who don’t try to PC and modernize the Bard - and there are some, yes, even here in NY - they know very well that the original plays used pig bladders filled with blood for fight scenes and there was blood spurting everywhere during many of his plays.  How else then, in King Lear,  can you watch Cornwall sneer “Out, vile jelly!” and then pull out one of Glouster’s eyes (while being egged on by Regan, a great female part!)  What happens is: you watch as he stands in front of the shaking man who is screaming with pain, and he pulls out his eye.  Blood should be all over the place.  What does he do with the eye?  Interesting choices the actor can make, but it’s still a human eye and he pulled it out with his bare hands.  This can’t be skipped over, nor played down, to try and imitate a false, genteel take on the good ol’ days. 

And as for sex?  What do you think these two are doing when they say these lines?:

  ?  Petruchio. Come, come, you wasp; i’ faith, you are too angry.
  ?  Katherina. If I be waspish, best beware my sting.
  ?  Petruchio. My remedy is then to pluck it out.
  ?  Katherina. Ay, if the fool could find it where it lies.
  ?  Petruchio. Who knows not where a wasp does wear his sting? ?In his tail.
  ?  Katherina. In his tongue.
  ?  Petruchio. Whose tongue?
  ?  Katherina. Yours, if you talk of tales; and so farewell.
  ?  Petruchio. What, with my tongue in your tail? Nay, come again, ?Good Kate; I am a gentleman.

Yes, they really are talking about “that”.  Shakespeare used every single word purposefully (e.g. “pluck”; a good actor knows how to not pass over that one…) And what do you think those two actors are doing while reciting this dialogue?  They aren’t sitting across from each other, with hands folded.  There’s a lot of rough sex implied there (actually, in that whole scene; this happens right after Petruchio tells Kate to sit on him and his three legs, i.e. the “join’d stool”; what do you think his third leg is?) and the actors bloody well know it. 

Sex and violence *can* be done when it’s written (and acted and directed) well.  Contemporary culture is a far way off, but please don’t saccharine up greats like Shakespeare insisting it’s “sweeter” than it is.  It really, really isn’t.  Nor should it be.

This is a complicated topic.  As complicated as human beings can be.  It makes me yearn to be a “Nathaniel” whom our Lord praised for being without guile.

Virtue is not tried in a vacuum, we are “multitasking”, physically, emotionally, and spiritually.  If we are new parents,we might find ourselves thrown for a loop, faced with a new identitiy.  If we are the parents of many, we have the task of navigating different levels of individual, emotional and spiritual development.

In the early years of parenting it seems we are tempted to, and can be accused of doing the spiritual equivalent of scrubbing everything with bleach.  We want to create a new Eden for these beautiful little creatures that have the very breath of heaven clinging to them.  We FEAR for them.  We are consumed with the pain of love.  We would die for them.  This makes us look at the world through a new lens, and at times our old friends, family, or even husband/wife can end up wondering how they fit into this ever changing equation.

Good movies (books, music, art) about real people keep us connected. They help us to confront our humanity, and if we are good parents, they help us to be more honest. We need to be able to get outside of ourselves.  We need to be able to fly above the trees to perceive the forest.  If it can help us to be a more authentic human being than it is good.  If it can give us perspective, and remember the delicate nuances of romantic love because the hour before we were swimming in diapers, bills, geometry tests and packing lunches (while sleep deprived) It is good.  If the imagery of a lingering romantic embrace on a screen in our living room jolts us back to the reality that we are lovers and not just work horses, slaves, baby whisperers….this is good.  Anything that is good and natural CAN become an occasion of sin if it is imbibed or lingered upon for the wrong reasons.  THIS is what must be judged on an individual basis, and by carefully listening to that small voice within us.

  We were so lucky to have a ground breaking Pope like JPII who had so much intimate insight into the soul of man. He opened up the wide world of beauty that is ours for the savoring; that saints are to be found in the theater, saying mass on a canoe in the forest, in the romantic embrace of carnal ecstasy, at a table laden with deliciously cooked food.  Yes, we live in a fallen world.  Yes, we suffer, but in affirming all that is good here, even to the point of elevating that suffering to a great good, we will begin to embrace the reality that the kingdom of heaven begins here.
This is accomplished through an affirmation, not a deprivation.

I’m 15. My mother previews basically everything I watch (by looking it up online—IMDb, Common Sense Ratings, PluggedInOnline). Sometimes she’ll say I can watch something, but at certain scenes will hit fast-forward while I close my eyes (as she did for “Titanic”). She’s not always there when I watch what I watch, however, and sometimes I’ll look away or tip the laptop screen down (as in “MI-5/Spooks”). Leaving aside whether I not I think sex scenes will damage me (which I think they will) I just don’t want to watch them! Ick, get a room (one without cameras in it).

As for reading and writing: My mother also previews a lot of what I read (by reading or skimming). Often she’ll place Post-It notes over the offensive scenes, sometimes summarizing so I’ll know what’s going on (if it’s not totally obvious from the previous paragraph).

I enjoy writing stories, and the guidelines I use there are: Would my mother let me read this if someone else had written it? Would I feel ashamed showing this to her? Is this something I should even be thinking about?

I think almost every film out there is preachy. It seems like people have _infinitely_ more patience for the preaching of moral relativism, sexual licentiousness, etc. than they do for, say Fireproof. Nevertheless, I felt that Fireproof was too overt, but I do think it should be recommended to anyone who you think could forgive its shortcomings. It’s powerful and it’s the kind of lesson that America needs.

I’m 28 and already a few of my peers from high school (and even a notable college’s Newman center) have began to get divorced. I’m sure the ten-year high school reunion of my graduating class this year and Facebook will team up to provide the temptation to wreck a few more soon enough. But I’m not married, it’s not my place to offer advice.

I haven’t seen Fireproof either, for pretty much the reasons you mentioned! That made me laugh out loud! God bless Kirk Cameron for trying, but I prefer something a little less obviously, blaringly preachy. I guess it’s just not my genre.

Antigone, bless you! You will go far. I love that you have this great relationship with your mother, AND that you are truly following God’s will in your life….My own daughter is 13 (she has five brothers), and she is a younger version of you. I loved reading what you wrote, and I hope and pray that you and other girls stay on this path to holiness.

Well, Hollywood preaches that sex is always wonderful with anyone, and if it’s not it’s because the man is a murderous !@#$%, who needs to be beaten to death by his suddenly macho ex-wife (girlfriend, whatever). And the United States, especially rogue agencies in the CIA, is the source of all political evils in the world. In this context, I think it’s great that someone is trying to preach that a failing marriage is worth saving and can be saved and the saving starts with changing oneself, not one’s partner.
The thing is, Hollywood trusts its chosen medium to deliver the message. Kirk Cameron’s group in Georgia, being Protestants and therefore iconoclastic, have chosen a visual medium for their message but ultimately do not trust it to get it’s point across.

Nuts! I just noticed that even I’m having trouble with it’s/its.

Antigone,it’s great to hear that I’m not the only teen who does that! I’m 17 and I usually just read the Plugged In reviews myself and make my choice from there. God bless!

I tried to search to see if anyone mentioned this, and I don’t see it anywhere——ClearPlay!  We love it.  You buy a DVD player and sign up online, and it filters out whatever stuff you want.  You choose: sex,violence, language…etc. I don’t work for them or anything…but I’m so grateful for this product because now our family can enjoy well made movies without “that one scene”.  www.clearplay.com

great piece! my hubby and I are the same. :) I tend to stay away from R rated movies too unless I know it’s manageable or just language related, that sort of thing. It’s just easier.

First I should say I own Fireproof because my mom bought it for all of the married couples one Valentine’s day.  I have never made my husband watch it.  Two, when I worked as a professional actress in the 80’s and 90’s I was playing Antigone when my brother died.  I came back to a traveling schedule for our repertory company of 3 performances of Antigone that day.  That was really the end of my acting/theater career.  To return after burying my brother to play a character who wants to bury her brother with honor was a real exploitation of my brother and my grief.  The same is true for sex scenes.  If you are pretending to be in love with someone other than your spouse for the entertainment of others…  It’s just icky.  Maybe the people who can do it and remain faithful to their spouses are stronger than I am.  But there’s a reason Hollywood marriages are notoriously short.

Well, this issue is kind of hard to deal with, especially for Catholics because we are never happy. This makes me nervous as a future catholic film director because I know how picky Catholics are. They want not one drop of blood or violence in their movies, yet will watch “Passion of the Christ” without any qualms, they refuse to watch fantasy, make-believe, mythical movie series like “Twilight” or Happy Potter” but cheer when then next “Chronicles of Narnia” movie comes out, and they draw the line with horror movies but rush to the popcorn after buying tickets for “The Rite” and “Exorcism of Emily Rose”. But sex in movies is quite unique, it sort of varies from person to person. Some people want no kissing or even hand holding whatsoever in a movie, other people draw the line at nudity. First of all, every single piece of information you need to know about a given movie can be found in the trailer, you honestly know exactly what’s coming at some point if you’ve seen the trailer so if you are appalled by a sex scene in a movie, you have only yourself to blame. Also, it’s obvious when a sex scene is approaching since the music becomes soft and sultry, the actors get that look in their eyes and a kiss or two comes, etc…. so if you dont close your eyes in time or look away, you really have no excuse. Sex scenes also vary from movie to movie. Some are about 3 seconds of petting or kissing then the next scene is both actors in the bed under the blanket taking or cuddling, others show quite more details. My point is, You have to understand that movies today are not movies from the 40’s, they are very REAListic (by that I mean there are no more Gene Autry’s, Marshall Dillon’s or Roy Rogers, no one is perfect in movies anymore, as well there shouldn’t be!) and with that abandoning those 100% divine beings in movies surrounded by less than stellar or terrible antagonists, real life is now on screen, as well it should be. So be ready, whatever you encounter, for good or bad, in your own life, expect to see it on the screen.