How do you see it?

[Guest]

To an extent, I agree with you here. The intent of the action does help define it, but intent is not everything. If one is crossing the lines we define in the law of chastity, intent does not matter. It is wrong. Where exactly we draw that line will vary depending on personal and cultural opinions for what is acceptable and what is not. In many cultures a kiss is nothing more than a form of greeting- as long as it's just a peck on the cheek or the lips and isn't long, drawn out and sensual. So, something similar in a movie would be acceptable. But crossing a line one would only cross with their spouse is just plain wrong, whether you are portraying a married couple or not.

If you are engaging in an intimate act is it real intimacy, in my mind.

Interestingly, we agree. I was never talking about the long drawn-out kiss stuff. Okay - Titanic, right? If I remember correctly - the porn scene did not show her breasts - only shoulders (okay, it's been a super long time - I was still Catholic even - so I don't actually remember that scene clearly). And the car scene only showed fogged up windows. As an actor portraying that scene, I wouldn't think there's anything wrong with it. (Ok, you have to make allowance for my poor memory of the scene - but just consider what I remember as opposed to what was actually shown, if that's ok).

But, I think the issue with Titanic that we're discussing is not the actor but the audience. Is it bad to go watch Titanic? I don't think so in the same token that I don't see it bad to watch Tangled - same questionable moral principle.

You gotta admit, Tangled never showed Eugene remorseful for his actions. As a matter of fact, he stole her crown at the end of the show - trying to be funny.

As an aside- I never watched Napoleon Dynamite. Couldn't even get past the first five minutes when I tried.

You didn't miss much. I sat through the movie out of respect for my husband who enjoyed it immensely... don't ask me why.

And it is my personal opinion that the whole point of film is to teach. What it is teaching is very, very important. I don't watch movies simply for enjoyment's sake. I watch them with the hope that I can learn something from it- and enjoy it at the same time. I love art in all its forms and film is one of my absolute favorites- and as I've thought about the many many movies under my belt I've come to realize something. Every minute I spend watching a movie has helped shape my outlook on the world. What outlook am I shaping? These movies, popular media, have a huge impact- more of an impact than much of our education I think. And as movies become less and less moral so does the world, because people believe that things are supposed to be the way they are in the movies and television shows. People mimic what they see on the television in their daily social interactions and expect to find similar results. What moral lessons are we embedding in ourselves?

Of course you are right that films are not all going to abide by LDS standards since we are such a minority of the world population- we have to either make some compromises between what we deem acceptable and what we will watch or make sacrifices because so little meets acceptable standards. I try to juggle a middle line because I enjoy film so much, but I have honestly been leaning more toward the sacrifice end of late and just cutting out television and movies altogether.

And yes, bad stuff does not cease to be bad just because we learn a lesson from it... but isn't that part of why we are here on this earth in the first place? To learn from our mistakes and the mistakes of others? What better way to learn from mistakes than to see in film an accurate portrayal of the consequences of making bad decisions? If we watch movies where people do bad things and have to suffer the consequences, or movies where people learn from their mistakes and change their lives for the better, is that not a good thing? But if the film glorifies the bad and makes it appear good... What are we teacking ourselves?

There's a line from a song I sang in a play that highlights my view on the matter- "You don't have to listen in to everything they say, you don't have to sing along with everything they say, you don't have to read about everything they write, and you don't have to watch everything that's on tonight. You can turn the dial, walk away, close the cover, refuse to play- remember in everything you do, the choice is up to you." I am not going to try to force my morals and opinions on others and tell them they can't do something just because I don't agree with it. But it is my choice whether or not I will watch it and/or support it. I haven't always been the best at turning away from things I don't agree with, but I'm always striving to get better and choose to bring only media into my life that will be uplifting- to seek after those things that are "virtuous, lovely, or of good report, or praiseworthy" and avoid all else.

We are different in this case. I'm a movie freak. My husband too. I guess that's why we got married. LOL!!!

I watch a movie not to learn something from it but to spend 2 hours outside of the everyday stuff. It's cheaper than going on a vacation. LOL. It's the same thing as me picking up a book. I don't read to learn something (okay, I do pick up a book if I want to learn something) but just to pass the time in oblivion. Yes, that includes Drizzt. I don't take his life lessons seriously.

[Guest]

Napoleon Dynamite makes so much more sense if you're from Idaho. Maybe other small farming areas, too, but especially Idaho. My husband and I went and saw it with my brother and his wife and we were all in stitches, but people who didn't grow up here don't seem to get why it's so funny.

[Jennarator]

Napoleon Dynamite makes so much more sense if you're from Idaho. Maybe other small farming areas, too, but especially Idaho. My husband and I went and saw it with my brother and his wife and we were all in stitches, but people who didn't grow up here don't seem to get why it's so funny.

I was trying to convince a missionary, from England that is servicng here in Idaho, to take that movie home and tell them that's what Idahoans are really like. LOL! I just might have to send a copy home with him......

[Guest]

You know what, I'm thinking and thinking and thinking and cannot remember in my mind if Adam and Eve was fully clothed in the temple video.

Man... I have to go back to the temple. And soon.

[Guest]

Some are, Jennerator, some are. I can go about 15 miles south and find a counterpart to every character.

anatess, they only show the tops of their shoulders and up. Also, the couples who play Adam and Eve are married (to each other).

[Suzie]

Because one pretends to shoot someone, unless one is stage kissing, one actually kisses someone. I can understand people who don't feel what is being done to do the portrayal is an issue but to liken it to shooting someone (or being someone who kills people) on screen overlooks the (or a least a) core of the issue some people have with actors kissing, it's not that that what is being depicted is a a problem (for example the characters could be married), but what is done to depict it is (married people kissing someone who isn't their spouse).

Note before either side wants to peg me to a wall I'm clarifying what I see as one half of the conversation, I am not championing one side over another.

I must admit I am probably exhausted and thinking with half brain but I really do not see the issue. BOTH are pretending. Just because you don't get to actually kill 6 people as a serial killer doesn't mean you are not acting or pretending so for me there is really no difference.

I respect the profession a lot. We have several great LDS actors who curse, kiss and fake smoking in movies (between others things) and they still members in good standing holding callings of leadership. I want believe if this was morally questionable, this won't be the case.

[JudoMinja]

Interestingly, we agree. I was never talking about the long drawn-out kiss stuff. Okay - Titanic, right? If I remember correctly - the porn scene did not show her breasts - only shoulders (okay, it's been a super long time - I was still Catholic even - so I don't actually remember that scene clearly). And the car scene only showed fogged up windows. As an actor portraying that scene, I wouldn't think there's anything wrong with it. (Ok, you have to make allowance for my poor memory of the scene - but just consider what I remember as opposed to what was actually shown, if that's ok).

But, I think the issue with Titanic that we're discussing is not the actor but the audience. Is it bad to go watch Titanic? I don't think so in the same token that I don't see it bad to watch Tangled - same questionable moral principle.

You gotta admit, Tangled never showed Eugene remorseful for his actions. As a matter of fact, he stole her crown at the end of the show - trying to be funny.

Breast was visible in the porn scene, and that is the one spot that I think crossed a line as far as how much the actors actually did to portray the relationship. I don't really have any beef with the car scene since, as you said, nothing is really shown except fogged up windows. Aside from that one part, my major issue with Titanic is that it gives a false message about love. Everyone gets all teared up about the guy dying so that she doesn't have to drown, and she is clinging to that "love" even in her old age after she's had children with someone else. The relationship she had with him was not love at all- it was a rebellious and inappropriate fling that she never repented of, and the movie teaches those who watch it that it was "true love".

This is why I think my #2 criteria is what causes Titanic to not pass on its appropriateness of actors/actresses portraying intimacy. Even if we cut out the scene where breast is visible, I personally consider the movie inappropriate and I've never watched it more than the one time where I decided I didn't like it.

You are also correct that Eugene never appears to feel any remorse for his actions in Tangled, but he does get caught and is about to be hung for his crimes- so there is at least an understanding that there were major consequences for what he did even if he escaped them. The only reason he gets rescued is so he can go save Rapunzel, and the King and Queen clearly forgave his crimes thanks to his good deed- something that can and does happen in real life sometimes. So while we don't really get a very good lesson on remorse and repentance, we do get a good lesson about turning one's life around to do good things and forgiveness.

We are different in this case. I'm a movie freak. My husband too. I guess that's why we got married. LOL!!!

I watch a movie not to learn something from it but to spend 2 hours outside of the everyday stuff. It's cheaper than going on a vacation. LOL. It's the same thing as me picking up a book. I don't read to learn something (okay, I do pick up a book if I want to learn something) but just to pass the time in oblivion. Yes, that includes Drizzt. I don't take his life lessons seriously.

I do take my choices in entertainment very seriously. :) The reason I do though, is because I believe that what we choose to expose ourselves to for fun and entertainment has one of the greatest impacts on our lives. We often take entertainment lightly, because it is "just for fun", but that is exactly why it should be taken seriously. It is what we enjoy the most, do the most, engage in the most, that teaches us the most. We learn better and more easily when we are having fun, and we remember things best that are enjoyable and cause us to laugh. I know I remember more from books I read for enjoyment, movies, and music than I do from anything else- and the way I interact with others is often a subconscious mimicry of things I learned from these entertainments.

I understand that not everyone sees it the way I do, and I'm perfectly okay with that, just as I understand that many people in the world do not commit themselves to the same standards I do so they will be judged differently for their actions than if I were to do the same thing. I've committed myself to living a certain way, so breaking that commitment is serious. But others who have not made the same commitments aren't really breaking anything, because they never learned that it was important to not do what they are doing.

So I can say I think it is wrong for actors/actresses to engage in any form of intimacy that would be breaking the law of chastity and I can draw my own line for where I think it becomes inappropriate, but I can also understand that they decide what is appropriate or inapproriate for themselves. I don't get to interfere with their free agency. What I can do is avoid supporting things I find inappropriate by not watching them or paying for them, find ways to advocate for what I do like and find appropriate, and teach those over which I have stewardship to make their own wise decisions about entertainment.

[applepansy]

It's funny though that a lot of people would have issues with a kissing scene but not with the role of a serial killer.

I have issues with violent movies

[Suzie]

I have issues with violent movies

Oh well, then there are more issues here than the kissing scene.

[JudoMinja]

Napoleon Dynamite makes so much more sense if you're from Idaho. Maybe other small farming areas, too, but especially Idaho. My husband and I went and saw it with my brother and his wife and we were all in stitches, but people who didn't grow up here don't seem to get why it's so funny.

Those people I know who liked Napolean Dynamite all told me the same thing you are describing here- that you have to be from Idaho to get why it is funny. I really just couldn't get past the first five minutes and don't really care to try to watch it again, but I can understand the sentiment for those from the area enjoying it. This is why I very much enjoyed the film New in Town. There are things in that film that are extremely amusing to someone who has lived in a small Minnesota town because they are hillariously accurate to the real thing, but someone who has never lived there would completely miss the jokes and would never understand.

[applepansy]

You know what, I'm thinking and thinking and thinking and cannot remember in my mind if Adam and Eve was fully clothed in the temple video.

Man... I have to go back to the temple. And soon.

No, but tastefully covered with foliage.

Eowyn, not even the tops of Eve's shoulders show.

Edited December 30, 2011 by applepansy

[beefche]

I am not from Idaho and never lived there and I love Napoleon Dynamite. And my best friend from high school is not LDS and never been to Idaho loves it too.

[Jennarator]

I am not from Idaho and never lived there and I love Napoleon Dynamite. And my best friend from high school is not LDS and never been to Idaho loves it too.

I have a good non-LDS friend that loves it, too. From San Diego and never been to Idaho. It's just funny.

[Bini]

It's getting hot in here.. LOL

"Intent" is an interesting thing. With acting it's a bit two-faced (1) the actor is pretending and yet (2) the actor's intent is to make their character believable and real.

[checkerboy]

I must admit I am probably exhausted and thinking with half brain but I really do not see the issue. BOTH are pretending. Just because you don't get to actually kill 6 people as a serial killer doesn't mean you are not acting or pretending so for me there is really no difference.

I respect the profession a lot. We have several great LDS actors who curse, kiss and fake smoking in movies (between others things) and they still members in good standing holding callings of leadership. I want believe if this was morally questionable, this won't be the case.

OK Call out time...

Name three (even though I believe several would be more) LDS actors that curse, kiss and fake smoke along with their leadership callings please.

I believe everyone has to define morality for themselves but the funny thing is that after this life Heavenly Father will tell us if we were right or wrong with our definitions.

[confuzzled]

I did theatre in college and luckly I didn't have to kiss any one. But in MHO it truly depends. IF the actor/actress is married is their spouse ok w/ it?? IF not then red flags. Also it is the actor/actress' job to become that character on that stage and only on that stage but once beyond the proscenium it is the real world again. Now don't get me wrong...IF it is beyond a kiss/a hug/ a handhold...it isn't appropriate. Porn should not and isnt art.

[Just_A_Guy]

People insist that the actor for Mike Brady kissing Carol Brady is bad because you COULD end up cheating on your wife because of it.

But Robert Reed was gay. Surely that changes things?

[Jennarator]

But Robert Reed was gay. Surely that changes things?

I was thinking that same thing...lol!!!

[Jennarator]

Hey Checkerboy, you're kinda cute. In any plays with kissing? If so, can I still audition?

Edited December 30, 2011 by Jennarator