Film Ethics

by Caleb Freeman

            While analyzing a motion picture one must question the purpose of the picture whether for pleasure or expression of an idea or concept. Ethical questions when applied to a film that purely expresses an idea or concept one must focus on the message or ideal the film communicates. Whereas a movie made purely for pleasure must be questioned on the premise of appropriateness. Now one is hard pressed to find a motion picture that does not include at least a small amount of both elements. Everything created by man has a purpose and idea that behind it that drives a man to create it. This is true because God created man for a purpose, to communicate the idea of love. One may object arguing that many movies are worthless with no idea behind it. One may give examples such as porn videos. Are they not purely for pleasure? The three stooges must be purely for entertainment. What purpose lies behind men smacking each other with pots and pans? One must admit those example seem quite weighty. However one may take into account that the founder of Playboy magazine viewed his business as key of the sexual revolution begun in the 50s, offering society freedom for the chains of tradition and religion. Porn videos as well as any overtly or subtly perverted pictures laugh at and scorn morals and values lifting the chalice of pagan sexuality. Now the Three Stooges had a purpose very much like Playboy. The popular 40s show was born in an era when the upper class ruled the lower class. The Stooges were the red-blooded blue-collared lower class who in each episode scorned the minute formalities of the wealthy ruling class. The Stooges laughed at a time when industrial giants controlled by the WASPs of the establishment overworked and underpaid their underprivileged employees while lounging in lavish luxury absorbed in the intricacies of formal obligations. The show ripped up the traditional expectations that gripped society and exposed the ridiculousness of them. Therefore even films that seem most indulgent and pointless have an agenda, whether concealed or conspicuous, the observer must be aware of in order to make conclusions on any aspect of the film, for in order to analyze specific aspects of a film one must first understand the context under which the film has been manifested.

            Now since all films have an agenda one must ask what sort of conduct that agenda embodies. If the agenda of a film such as the two already described is influencing its audience to rebel against a specific aspect of society then one must ask whether rebellion against that specific aspect of society is ethical. Elaborating on this point one must realize that every agenda is an argument defending or attacking an aspect of the human experience. Therefore every film rebels against one idea while promoting another. If a film did not rebel against or support an idea then that film has no purpose. Since the previous paragraph has held the presumption that all films have a purpose then one must assert that all movies rebel against an idea while supporting another. Therefore the question stands, is the idea the film supports ethical and the idea it rebels against unethical? If the film supports a virtuous idea it does not mean the film is all moral. Just as if a film supports an unethical idea it does not mean the film is all evil. Take Adam Sandler movies for example; every movie is another slap in the face of the traditional code of decent society. However throughout the perversion and sexual innuendo there remains a tone of virtue that weaves contrast into the picture. Take 50 1^st Dates for example, filled to the brim with off-color jokes yet the viewer walks away pondering the virtues of longsuffering and unconditional love. This is a useful trick for the Enemy because it tells a half truth. It paints a reality where it’s ok to do unethical deeds as long as your heart is in the right place. Arguably this is true. All men do unethical deeds, yet some men are righteous because they have a right heart. An Adam Sandler movie hits hardest at legalistic religion. The good guy does all bad stuff, but still is good inside, and the bad guy does all the right stuff, but is really bad inside. Adam Sandlers Billy Madison is a classic example. The movie Pleasantville plays the opposite role. One does not see unethical ideas presented as overtly as in an Adam Sandler movie, but it conveys a clear unethical message: that open uncontrolled sexuality is healthy for society, but has been suppressed by men, in short, extreme feminism. Now I could watch and enjoy an Adam Sandler movie, and despite the humor that grates my principles I can walk away knowing it’s the heart that counts. Whereas the movie Pleasantville was incredibly subtle in the way it addressed sexuality yet its intent to intensely attack the decent moral standards I live my life by compelled me to stop watching it. In the case of those movies I relied on overall context and intent rather than specific ethical concerns.

            Now there are times for fast forwarding and times for complete abortion of viewing a movie due to specific ethical reasons. Sex and nudity top my list of ethical concerns. One can argue that scenes such as that in Titanic were artistic and wage the nude or naked war, but frankly whether nude or naked her body prompts me in an inappropriate manner. Therefore it’s unethical for me to watch any nude scene. My own feelings are that the nude scene in the movie Titanic was designed to evoke lust from men to portray lust and sexual passion outside of marriage in a positive light. Having Jack sketch Rose naked twisted the constructive and positive nature of art into the destructive and negative nature of fornication producing yet another half truth that grates upon decent moral standards. (by the way if you want to be amazed and intrigued by half truths read The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown, you begin to understand that Satan has been working sex into his schemes the same way he is today for thousands of years) Now the way I have heard Schindler's List portrays nudity (I have not seen the film) pushes an entirely different agenda towards the audience. Nudity is viewed in a shameful and unattractive light, in a way that repels lust and passion, that is reality sex and nudity outside of marriage and I am glad to hear it. Sex and nudity outside a marital context are shameful and reproachful. The Devil loves to package venom in a way that looks and feels attractive.

            Language is next on my movie ethics taboo list. However the common no-no’s such as damn, hell, fuck, etcetera, do not exactly seem unethical to me. Those words may be rude, immature, and obnoxious, but not unethical as lying, adultery, or insubordination. It’s when someone uses God’s name that it really repulses me whether it’s in movies, music, or reality. In music especially, I could listen to an Eminem song that says fuck every other sentence, but if a song says G-damn repeatedly I cannot stand listening to it. I would rather say fuck 1000 times than even think G-damn it. Using God name in vain is taking something sacred and most holy and mixing it with your own human folly. It’s disgusting.

            Violence does not bother me much at all. I do not believe that watching violent movies or playing violent games or listening to violent music will have much effect on a person unless he or she is angry. For me listening to an angry song while I am angry is like fueling a fire. Violence portrayed in movies usually includes a certain element of sacrifice. War movies are those where men are putting their lives on the line for those they love. It’s kill or have you and your buddies be killed or worse, just your buddies. In the movie The Passion I did not feel like crucifying someone after I watched it. Instead I felt an overwhelming sense of sacrifice on the part of Christ. However movies with cold-blooded torture and violence I find very hard to watch. Even crime documentaries that tell true stories of mass murders I cannot watch very easily. It’s not as much an ethical issue I just cannot imagine a person so evil and so cold that they would find pleasure in murder. It scares me to think of it.

            Therefore first of all I look for the agenda and intent of a movie. To do so I line up the idea being portrayed with the specifics. This sets the context for the ethical considerations. Foremost of which is sex and nudity for it affects physical and spiritual in an inappropriate way. Language mixed with God’s name I hate because of its incredible irreverence. Sacrificial violence that is honorable I believe is healthy and instructive. However cold-blooded murder for pleasure scares when I ponder the implications.

© 2005 Caleb Freeman