Time for my latest rant.
As I was driving home from a great sushi dinner with friends, the conversation turned, as it often does with me, to movies. They were asking me what some great films were, I mentioned that they should see "Good Night, and Good Luck," "Paradise Now" and, perhaps most importantly, "Crash." My friend in the backseat asked what Crash was rated and I told him. He, like many of my other friends, does not watch any film that is rated "R." I respect that, I feel that people should live their lives in accordance with their personal beleifs and I support them in that decision.
A friend of my friends piped up from the backseat, "you should get it from CleanFlicks," she said," it is really good."
This, I cannot support. The audacity of people to think they have the right to take the artistic expression of the director and modify it to suit their own tastes. The best analogy I can think of for this situation is that of putting underwear, or a fig leaf (like in the BYU Art History book), and using it to cover up Michaelangelo's David. It is the exact same thing.
Before continuing I will concede that some directors are not in the business to express themselves artisticly and use inappropriate material in an distasteful manner just to sell movie tickets. I do not patronize these films, whether they are "R" or even "PG-13." I have found that some of the latter offend much more than many or most of the former.
After relating this analogy, the girl in the backseat exclaimed, "I have seen the David, it is so beautiful!"
It took a lot to keep myself from reaching back and smacking her (not literally, I would of course never do that).
I can't understand people who can accept a nude sculpture or painting as art, yet deem material in quality films to be immoral. How can this difference be rationalized? Where is the line to be drawn? Have you ever seen The Ecstasy of St Theresa? What do these type of people think of this sculpture? I am quite sure that this girl would accept this piece as art, yet continue to reject movies that are much less graphic.
I would love someone to explain this rationale to me.
true story:
ReplyDeletemy friend (who eventually went crazy and moved to idaho) and i were in florence, at the academia, staring up at david in all his glory. (it really is a beautiful sculpture, by the way. not my favorite michelangelo, but that is beside the point.) she turns to me and says, "i know this is a stupid question, but i'm gonna ask it anyway. is this david, as in david and goliath?"
also, i love the ecstasy of st. teresa. fascinating piece.
ReplyDeletealso, what art history book are you talking about? none of mine were censored.
Sinner! The human form is a thing of beauty created by a higher form. Movies are created by man, who is imperfect. In other words, nudity (OK), R rated movies (NOT OK) :)
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteanonymous...you are stupid.
ReplyDeleteI love that you have such a passionate opinion!
ReplyDeleteI love you for stirring the pot. Lots of small minds in your neck of the woods. You go little brother! (And Crash was an AMAZING film.)
ReplyDeleteOOh, I'm still irritated. Altering someone else's art - regardless of the medium - to fit your particular tastes or to make you more comortable... it's wrong. Period. And in this case - the case of filmmaking, I feel more than qualified to make such an absolute statement. Your decision to experience or avoid any artistic expression is yours and yours alone - I respect whichever choice you make. But unless it is YOUR film, YOUR painting, YOUR sculpture, YOUR novel - you DO NOT have a right to change it. Ever. Shame on those who support such vandalism. I'm sorry, but we're not in the business of making movies so someone else can re-make them. Love them or leave them, but don't change them.
ReplyDelete