August 7, 2008
Movie Watching Tip: What You See Sticks With You
Even if you feel like you turn your brain off when you're watching a movie, your noggin is still working and receiving information. When you watch a movie, your mind processes the content and stores much of it into your memory. This means you carry what you see in your head well after the final credits have rolled. The images and messages of a movie will slosh around in your skull and you probably don't even recognize it.Since this is the case, it is wise to consider what you're consuming. Movies do stick with you. If you watch a horrid piece of torture porn like Saw, Hostel or Wolf Creek, the images will remain in your head. Watch a lot of sexual porn? Same thing. The lingering effects will alter your thinking and can sometimes have some unwanted side effects.
Think before you consume. Choose material that improves you, not crud that only drags you down. Guard what you let creep into your fleeting thoughts.
Labels: miscellaneous, movie watching tip
posted by Michelle Obama's Left Nut at 12:00 PM
Share
Previous Posts
Friends & Reads
Christian & Culture
Film Resources
Christian Sites
Faithcom
Featured On
Good News Film Reviews LLC 2004-2010 - used with permission
Images, video and titles are the property of their respective copyright holders. Good News Film Reviews LLC claims no ownership or connection to them.
The views expressed on this site are not the opinion of any advertiser or external entity.
While we take care to only link to responsible entities, Good News Film Reviews LLC takes no responsibility for the content linked from this site. There are sharks in the waters. Surf at your own risk.
The Template is generated via PsycHo and is Licensed.
10 Comments:
From this post:
"When you watch a movie, your mind processes the content and stores much of it into your memory. This means you carry what you see in your head well after the final credits have rolled. The images and messages of a movie will slosh around in your skull and you probably don't even recognize it."
From an earlier post:
"What is important is not content, meaning nudity, violence, sexual activity or cursing, but context - this is the key."
Either content matters or it doesn't. I think you got it right when you say we don't even know how much things get stuck in our heads. Recklessness is not commendable, and I'd say scripture would support that:
Philippians 4:8
8Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.
These are complimentary statements not contradictory and I am hardly reckless (a charge I think is completely unfounded) as a matter of fact, the whole point of the post was to warn people to not be reckless.
Philippians 4:8 backs me up for it demands that we make a judgment (identify context) on what we consume. Look at something consider what it is saying and react accordingly. It's not saying "thou shalt not see naked breasts". The fact is that many things in this world that are true, commendable and right are R-Rated. We don't live in a G-Rated world.
Your mind does retain what you see. That is why you need to be careful what you watch. Nudity and even violence are not forbidden and not inherently damaging when held in the proper light. It is the context of the nudity, sexual activity and violence that is of concern. This is why I used the example of porn instead of just saying nudity. There is a different between the shower scene in Porky's and the one in Schindler's List - context.
If one takes the opinion that no nudity, no violence, no cuss words, no adult content, is acceptable they are not only barring themselves to watch nothing but mindless films made for children, but also the thrust of all art. They would also be denying the world, denying truth.
In closing I'd ask you'd to consider 1 Corinthians 6:12 - "Everything is permissible for me-but not everything is beneficial. Everything is permissible for me—but I will not be mastered by anything."
You're allowed one more verse throwdown before this officially turns into a Bible Fight. :)
I never said you can't use nudity, sex and violence, but under most circumstances it's just appealing to the wretchedness in humans. Context can readily be in the eye of the beholder, and the rot too many filmmakers advance as valid content is most likely stooping to the lowest common denominator and needless for a story.
This is why I appreciate your call for Christians to get filmakers to improve their products by in a sense demanding it.
There's plenty of scripture to bring in from both sides, and plenty of ways to abuse it. Phillipians 4:8 does not tell us to cover our eyes and ears - we are not to remove ourselves from the culture; and Corinthians 6:12 is not a license to engage in anything we want - there is much being said in the words that follow "Everything is permissable"
The key to the quote is in "but I will not be MASTERED by anything."
"and the rot too many filmmakers advance as valid content is most likely stooping to the lowest common denominator and needless for a story." Most of it is put in for shock value, but I think Christians are inclined to throw the baby out with the bathwater "just in case". The demand Christians need to make on filmmakers is not to have any adult content in their films but that their films are truthful, well done and honorable. I find a secular film that is truthful to be far more godly than a number of the Christian films I've seen that portray life as a live-action version of VeggieTales.
Ultimately, it is in the eye of the beholder. What I find permissible, is something you may find abhorrent. The arts and human expression is a broad playing field and there's a lot going on. Christians must consider the context of what is happening on screen and how it effects us. This is what deems it to be offensive or not. Hold it up to the light of Christ and keep what is good and discard the rest.
BTW when you say "There's plenty of scripture to bring in from both sides, and plenty of ways to abuse it." I fear you're implying I'm attempting to abuse the scripture. This is another way of saying "even the devil can quote scripture". I certainly hope this wasn't you meant. You can disagree with a brother without maligning his intent and calling into question his faith.
No intent to disparage you brother. I am arguing somewhat against your interpretation of Corinthians 6:12, but I do not question your intentions.
Beauty being in the eye of the beholder is another blog all together. I suspect we would have a spirited debate on that, but we will let that one rest for now.
No offense meant, none taken.
Please go further with how you believe I am off base in regards to Corinthians 6:12. I'm curious where my error is
Where is the debate on beauty being in the eye of the beholder? There's only one set standard for beauty?
Maybe a better way to phrase it is I think how you advance Cor. 6:12 tends to pull away from profitable restraints. Maybe not for yourself, but for others who are looking for reasons to justify their choices. Paul was writing against binding people from things that are not sinful. The problem was legalism. I am not trying to bind your conscience, I'm saying that instead of legalism, this day and age seems prone to overplay liberty. That's all.
For example, the problem in many churches isn't telling women they must wear ankle length skirts, it's encourgaing them to dress modestly (a call in the NT) and gently reproove them when they dress otherwise. And yes, we can make the distinction between what's fashionable and stepping over the line. That's why daddies who care tell their daughters that they shouldn't dress a particular way.
As for standards of beauty, in the past objectiveness was not a dirty word. And no, I'm not saying there is one set standard, but we have come a long way (in the wrong direction when this guy is given space in any museum: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andres_Serrano. Now it seems we are not supposed to call something hideous or condemn it as what it is, when in fact it is hideous. Vileness is now considered valid art. The fact that Serrano has been given the time of day tells me it's all about money.
Anyway, I'm not saying you're like that, but I've been frustrated by this topic in recent months, so forgive me if I sound contentious.
Listen, if someone is going to use a post on a blog for justification for doing the wrong thing, they were too far gone in the first place.
Liberty is a great thing. I support it always. The ability and compulsion to choose is a beautiful thing. Liberty is never the issue, it is what is done with it.
Your example of Serrano compliments my point about porn. At points there are clear distinctions where reasonable people can point to something and see that it is foul. Those pretending salacious expression is artistic are not only fooling themselves they're also damaging society at large. It is the result of the arts being at once dumbed down to allow anyone to be able to create it while simultaneously being contained the the elite. Getting back to our argument - a Christian should be able to follow your link, review what Serrano is up to and then cast it into the dumpster where it belongs.
Thanks for engaging in this discussion with me. I realize I'm on a different track of thinking in the sense that my example of Serrano speaks about how I'm frustrated over what passes as valid these days, and is considered acceptable art. It's not about censorship to me, but my determination to have others listen to my criticism about buying in to the lowest common denominator. Ergo, if I ask someone why they watched a particular film or engaged in any sort of activity, the response "because I can" becomes the chant because they have nowhere else to go.
So when I speak of film, in a sense I'm speaking of my frustration over the drive to give credence to that which objectively could/should be rejected as unworthy or pointless. We seem prone to move in the direction of being non-thinking when it comes to what we deem as profitable. We give credibility by ingesting that which should burn holes in our guts. Or as it is, too many of us seem to think like Hollywood. And I know Scott tries hard to help us understand how Hollywood thinks so we can avoid the pitfalls, which must at times be mind-numbing in ways I can't imagine.
I understand your frustration but I think you may be misunderstanding that the frustration you have about films today, you would have had the same frustrations throughout time. I can't even imagine the works that would have been made if our ancestors would have had access to film. Look at The Intervention of the Sabine Women, The Raft of the Medusa, or The Garden of Earthly Delights and tell me you wouldn't have been just as troubled. Our culture is sick and its not getting better. Often I think it is on the decline, when I see the moves to normalize NC-17 so mainstream films can start including frank sex acts I really get depressed. You should also think about the good that is being produced, the thoughtful, free and open market of ideas we have access to. This is a fallen world and there is always going to be low entertainment. Try to take what is offered to you and hold it up to the light of Christ. Keep that which is good and discard the rest. Be a steward of your soul, and try not to lead others to stuff that will harm them.
It is mind numbing to watch so many films. I watched a film last night that opens, OPENS with Philip Seymour Hoffman having sex - and you see him doing it EWWWWWW! AHHH! Talk about not wanting something stuck in your head. Here's the credits AND NOW HERE'S PHIL!
Post a Comment
<< Home