MPAA ratings to include religious content?
I have now come to accept CBS News' usage of opinion pieces from the Weekly Standard. It forever tarnishes the network with a right wing gloss that causes me to suspect everything they publish.
However, today I have a read a Weekly Standard piece that truly interests me, even if I don't accept its basic premise.
It concerns a film I've never heard of called "Facing the Giants" and its PG rating, which many have speculated came solely from its religious themes.
Provident [the film's production company] spokesperson Kris Fuhr told Scripps Howard News Service that the MPAA used the word "proselytizing" in its explanation for giving the film — which contains no sex, violence, or profanity — a PG rating. "They decided that the movie was heavily laden with messages from one religion and that this might offend people from other religions," Fuhr said, adding: "It is kind of interesting that faith has joined that list of deadly sins that the MPAA board wants to warn parents to worry about."
Of course, this sent conservative Christian bloggers and commentators berserk, much to my amusement because who honestly is afraid to let any child see a PG film any longer? Isn't PG the new G?
Pointing out that — according to a study by the Harvard School of Public Health — the MPAA's standards for onscreen sex and violence have weakened dramatically in the last decade, "This incident raises the disquieting possibility that MPAA considers exposure to Christian themes more dangerous for children than exposure to gratuitous sex and mindless violence," [Majority Whip Roy] Blunt wrote.
I do agree that the MPAA has eased its regulations on sex and violence over the years; often I am shocked by the level of violence in supposed family friendly films. Indeed, PG-13 now represents what would have been an R film just ten or fifteen years ago.
Still, do I think exposure to Christian themes can be harmful to children? That's a loaded question. The words of Jesus are filled with peace and love. But fundamentalist or pentecostal themes are distinct interpretations of Jesus that I do find troubling and potentially dangerous. And if the ratings intention is to warn parents, then perhaps the appearance of such themes does deserve to be considered when applying a rating to a film.
This then raises some very pointed questions, such as this:
If the MPAA has indeed decided to rate films with an eye on religious content, it will be interesting to see how consistent those ratings will be. Will only Christian films be suspect, or will parents also be warned about films with Jewish or Buddhist or Muslim-friendly messages? What about films that attack or mock religious doctrine — such as The Da Vinci Code and The Last Temptation of Christ?
As a lapsed Catholic, I did not find the furor around the Da Vinci Code of much interest. Any institution as powerful as the Catholic Church should and can withstand scrutiny of its practices and ideas.
But I do find it curious, if not compelling, that critics of this potential ratings practice immediately assume a stance of persecution. Fundamentalist Christians use this ploy all the time — reminding me of the article on "faith crime" I discussed earlier.
With all the criticism fundamentalist and conservative Christians launch at general society, they should expect similar criticism to be aimed in their direction as well. Simply because they worship Jesus does not exempt them.
The link: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/21/opinion/main1825070.shtml
However, today I have a read a Weekly Standard piece that truly interests me, even if I don't accept its basic premise.
It concerns a film I've never heard of called "Facing the Giants" and its PG rating, which many have speculated came solely from its religious themes.
Provident [the film's production company] spokesperson Kris Fuhr told Scripps Howard News Service that the MPAA used the word "proselytizing" in its explanation for giving the film — which contains no sex, violence, or profanity — a PG rating. "They decided that the movie was heavily laden with messages from one religion and that this might offend people from other religions," Fuhr said, adding: "It is kind of interesting that faith has joined that list of deadly sins that the MPAA board wants to warn parents to worry about."
Of course, this sent conservative Christian bloggers and commentators berserk, much to my amusement because who honestly is afraid to let any child see a PG film any longer? Isn't PG the new G?
Pointing out that — according to a study by the Harvard School of Public Health — the MPAA's standards for onscreen sex and violence have weakened dramatically in the last decade, "This incident raises the disquieting possibility that MPAA considers exposure to Christian themes more dangerous for children than exposure to gratuitous sex and mindless violence," [Majority Whip Roy] Blunt wrote.
I do agree that the MPAA has eased its regulations on sex and violence over the years; often I am shocked by the level of violence in supposed family friendly films. Indeed, PG-13 now represents what would have been an R film just ten or fifteen years ago.
Still, do I think exposure to Christian themes can be harmful to children? That's a loaded question. The words of Jesus are filled with peace and love. But fundamentalist or pentecostal themes are distinct interpretations of Jesus that I do find troubling and potentially dangerous. And if the ratings intention is to warn parents, then perhaps the appearance of such themes does deserve to be considered when applying a rating to a film.
This then raises some very pointed questions, such as this:
If the MPAA has indeed decided to rate films with an eye on religious content, it will be interesting to see how consistent those ratings will be. Will only Christian films be suspect, or will parents also be warned about films with Jewish or Buddhist or Muslim-friendly messages? What about films that attack or mock religious doctrine — such as The Da Vinci Code and The Last Temptation of Christ?
As a lapsed Catholic, I did not find the furor around the Da Vinci Code of much interest. Any institution as powerful as the Catholic Church should and can withstand scrutiny of its practices and ideas.
But I do find it curious, if not compelling, that critics of this potential ratings practice immediately assume a stance of persecution. Fundamentalist Christians use this ploy all the time — reminding me of the article on "faith crime" I discussed earlier.
With all the criticism fundamentalist and conservative Christians launch at general society, they should expect similar criticism to be aimed in their direction as well. Simply because they worship Jesus does not exempt them.
The link: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/21/opinion/main1825070.shtml
Comments