Category: Film and TV

Michelle here.

Since getting my DVD player operational last month, I have been starting to collect TV shows that I have loved. Most of my new acquisitions are shows for grownups, naturally enough, but one is my favorite cartoon show as a kid: He-Man and the Masters of the Universe.

Looking back on the show from the perspective of an adult, I can now see why my parents dismissed it as a thirty-minute toy commercial. It was. It was also extremely corny. I often can’t stop giggling when He-Man yells, "I HAVE THE POOOW-ERRR!" The animation is somewhat crude by today’s standards and it is fascinating how often the animators relied on stock images, especially during the transformation scenes.

But what makes the show interesting to me as an adult is how grounded the stories are in morality. Now, He-Man was famous for tacking on a little morality speech at the end of each episode, but that isn’t what interests me. The episodes themselves had stories that made important moral points, some of them often startlingly Christian in nature.

In one episode, the female protagonist Teela is bemused when He-Man risks his life to save the evil Mer-Man. Why did he do it? she asks. He-Man responds that all life is precious, even an evil one. In another episode, archvillain Skeletor and his henchmen cast a spell to summon an evil creature from another dimension so that they can use the creature to conquer Eternia. Much to their dismay they find that they cannot control the creature they have summoned and must turn to the good guys for help in getting rid of it.

Powerful stuff, with a message kids today would do well to hear.

For more information on the DVDs that are currently available, check out the following fan site, apparently maintained by a practicing Christian:

CastleGrayskull.org

Okay, I don’t get it.

Harry Forbes has a review up of Woody Allen’s latest movie, Match Point, that displays a level of moral incoherence that rivals what was displayed in his original review of Brokeback Mountain.

First, a couple of disclaimers:

1) I’m not criticizing Match Point because I haven’t seen it. At present, it’s only playing in a few cities.

2) I like Woody Allen films–or at least I’m favorably disposed to them. I own many of them on DVD. They aren’t all equally good (Curse of the Jade Scorpion is nowhere near as funny as Small Time Crooks, for example), but many are very entertaining and insightful.

3) Many of Woody Allen’s films contain morally offensive elements, but this does not of itself make a film morally offensive. It’s the overall worldview of a film that makes it offensive, and I’ve been surprised by how firm Allen can be in giving his films a fundamentally moral worldview.

This is particularly notable in films like Crimes and Misdemeanors, which is a meditation on the idea that the universe has "moral structure" in the terms of the film, and also Alice, which involves Mother Theresa and ends with such a strong pro-Catholic statement that it made me wonder if Woody had secretly converted.

I was disappointed, therefore to read

THIS PIECE ON JEFFREY OVERSTREET’S BLOG.

For those who may not be aware, Jeffrey Overstreet is one of the more perceptive Protestant film critics, who is able to do nuanced, balanced Christian film criticism without veering either into the "Nothing immoral must ever be shown on screen" school of Fundamentalist film criticism nor into the "Everything’s okay as long as it’s done artfully" school.

Overstreet also works for Christianity Today, where he does a film roundup that exposes him to the view of many other critics, including those of the U. S. bishops’ Office of Film and Broadcasting, of which Harry Forbes is the head.

Overstreet previously commented on the problems with Forbes’ tenure as head of the OFB, writing:

Since Harry Forbes took over as head of the film review responsibilities for the USCCB, the reviews have indeed declined in quality, depth, and insight.

Now he points out the moral incoherence of Forbes’ review of Woody Allen’s Match Point. To give you a sample, here are some of the things that Forbes says:

• [L]ike its protagonist, the film delineates a universe governed not by God but by pure chance — a theme that has permeated some of Allen’s other films.
• The film contains several discreetly filmed sexual encounters but no overt nudity, some innuendo, an adultery theme, scattered profanity and crass words, a couple of violent episodes discreetly filmed, an abortion discussion, and a nihilistic worldview.

Okay. So Forbes says that the film has a nihilistic worldview of a universe not governed by God but by chance.

Overstreet is even more explicit (EXCERPTS):

Match Point is the darkest, most amoral film of his career, basically laughing at anyone who values their conscience.

[I]t has been carefully crafted to recommend a lifestyle that runs directly counter to any kind of ethical worldview.

Yes, Match Point is dripping with style. But its “cautionary points” have to do with how to avoid the consequences of your sins… in fact, it seems to disregard the idea of sin completely, showing us how to live deviously, taking risky gambles and reveling in our exploits.

[I]t seems to exist precisely for that purpose — to contradict any story that suggests there is any God, or any reason not to embrace evil as a method for getting what you want.

A friend of mine who saw the film was taken aback when she heard a line in it in which the adulterer hero says something to the effect of "It would be fitting if I were caught and punished. . . . It would be some small indication of real justice." But the film ultimately makes it clear that, as Larry Niven would say, "There Ain’t No Justice."

That’s the "nihilistic worldview" Forbes says the film has.

So it sounds like Allen has lost the "moral structure" that embued his previous films. We’ve got three different individuals–two of them professional movie critics–attesting to the film’s nihilistic, amoral worldview.

As a Woody Allen fan, that’s disappointing to me, but I assume that’s the way this film is (at least until I see it for myself).

How to explain, then, Harry Forbes also saying:

• This outlook does not, however, preclude the story being told with a strong moral perspective.

Huh?

How can a film have a "nihilistic worldview" in which the "a universe governed not by God but by pure chance" and yet the film has "a strong moral perspective"?

This is simply incoherent.

A film cannot have both a strong moral perspective and a nihilistic one that specifically repudiates the foundation of the moral order.

Can’t be done.

I’m thus at a loss to explain the moral incoherence of this review. If it were an isolated case, I could chalk it up to simple mistake or miscommunication, but this is on the heels of the Brokeback Mountain fiasco, in which someone at the OFB (presumably Forbes) demonstrated an inability to understand the structure of its own ratings system and only on the third try kinda got it right.

It may simply be that Forbes has no background in moral theology and is not capable of correctly analyzing or articulating the fundamental moral perspectives of films. This Catholic News Service piece on Forbes lists his qualifications as follows:

He came to OFB after a successful career at the New York affiliates of NBC, CBS, and PBS, and most extensively, for PBS itself. Besides a lifetime of movie and TV consumption as a viewer, he brings experience as a theater reviewer for NYC public access TV, Time Out New York and Manhattan Spirit, which is the largest circulation weekly in the city.

There’s on indication in that that he has a background–academic or otherwise–in moral theology, and it may be this lack that is responsible for such incoherence when it comes to his reviews of morally problematic films.

Either Match Point has a nihilistic worldview in which there is no justice and the universe is governed by chance or it has one in which the universe has a fundamental moral structure (whether that structure is seen as rooted in God or not).

If it has the former worldview then the film is saying that there is nothing ultimately wrong with the movie’s central theme–an adulterous relationship (coupled with murder and theft)–and that’s morally offensive. Since this is the core theme of the movie (just as an approved homosexual relationship was the core theme of Brokeback Mountain) then the film deserves an O rating.

In fact, in the third iteration of the Brokeback Mountain review, the film’s approval of adultery–not just homosexuality–was cited as equal reason for giving it an O.

On the other hand, if the film’s worldview isn’t nihilistic but has "a strong moral perspective" (like Alice, where adultery is presented and ultimately rejected in favor of moral redemption) then Forbes shouldn’t be telling us things that imply otherwise.

Forbes can’t have it both ways. That’s just incoherent.

Ultimately–as you might expect–Forbes doesn’t give it an O. He doesn’t even give it an L. Instead,

The USCCB Office for Film & Broadcasting classification is A-III — adults.

He also turns in yet another gushy rave review about a film that seems to endorse a fundamentally immoral central theme, saying:

• After a slew of disappointing efforts, Allen is at the top of his form in a superbly acted psychological drama. . . .
• Working in England for the first time, with a largely English cast, has resulted in Allen’s finest work in years. Meyers, who played Elvis Presley in a 2005 CBS made-for-TV movie, gives a well-delineated portrayal resembling, in many respects, Montgomery Clift’s character in "A Place in the Sun." Mortimer is quite believable as the clueless wife, and Johannson impresses anew in one of her most mature outings to date.
• Other roles are well played by Wilton, Cox, Goode and Margaret Tyzack as Nola’s kindly neighbor, who proves pivotal to the plot.
• Because of some surprising plot developments, the less you know about the story before going in, the better. But suffice it to say, this hypnotically compelling drama is among the very best of the year.

To be honest, my first thought after encountering the last comment was "Is Harry Forbes just hypnotized by evil?" Further thought suggested that no, it’s more likely that he’s hypnotized by art.

Anything that’s done in an artistic manner tends to get a pass from him when it comes to moral issues.

This strongly suggests that Forbes has not assimilated Vatican II’s statement that

[A]ll must hold to the absolute primacy of the objective moral order, that is, this order by itself surpasses and fittingly coordinates all other spheres of human affairs-the arts not excepted-even though they be endowed with notable dignity [Inter mirifica 6].

Not having seen Match Point yet, I don’t know if it ultimately has a nihilistic or a moral worldview.

I do know that the level of incoherence displayed in Forbes’ review is not what people expect when visiting the U. S. bishops’ website for guidance on the moral character of movies.

I especially know that people expect better moral guidance from the U. S. bishops’ web site than giving movies with nihilistic, amoral worldviews gushy recommendations to go see them like saying "this hypnotically compelling drama is among the very best of the year"!

As Jeffrey Overstreet’s remarks illustrate, even those in the non-Catholic community are starting to take note of the problem at the OFB. Playing on JP2’s reported comment upon seeing The Passion of the Christ ("It is as it was"), he writes:

[I]s it now the perspective of the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops that a movie’s perspective — whether moral or nihilistic — is something worth noting, but really not all that important? If a film that tells us there is no God, that if we should take a gamble and seize all the pleasure we can grab… should we go around recommending this title to our friends and neighbors?

I have a feeling that if Pope Benedict were to see this film, he would reject its presentation of reality, saying, “It is as it most certainly isn’t.”

The fiasco over the "gay cowboy movie" Brokeback Mountain had me wondering what real cowboys thought about the film. As I suspected, the common answer is "Not much."

"Jim-Bob Zimmerschied is not a happy cowboy. ‘They’ve gone and killed John Wayne with this movie,’ he says angrily, beer in hand. ‘I’ve been doing this job all my life and I ain’t never met no gay cowboy. It wouldn’t be right.’

[…]

"But away from the bellicose posturing, a more subtle view emerged. Dave Miller, 48, a rancher in regulation black cowboy hat, leather waistcoat, blue jeans and boots, said: ‘It’s not the sort of movie that I’d go to see, but this is America and people can watch whatever they want.’ Nonetheless, he repeated the common refrain that he had never encountered a gay cowboy. ‘Well, not that I knew,’ he added. ‘I just don’t think our way of life is conducive to them.’ And like many others, his concern was that the film would give the wrong impression of life in the West."

My favorite reaction:

"Lee Hagel, 47, who was herding cattle there last week, had his own objections to the film. ‘They aren’t even cowboys — they’re sheep herders,’ he said witheringly. ‘You can’t just put a hat on someone and say they’re a cowboy.’"

GET THE STORY.

(NOTE: The article, although written for a mainstream newspaper, contains some crude language that may not be suitable for all readers.)

(JIMMY ADDS: JimmyAkin.Org rates the newspaper piece L for limited adult audience, articles whose problematic content many adults would find troubling.)

King Kong may have thrashed Aslan in a Google Fight, but at the box office, where it really counts, Aslan proves that he remains the King of the Beasts:

"The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe snatched the box office crown from King Kong during another fierce four-day holiday battle for the top spot.

"Old acquaintances met again: Less than $2 million has separated Kong and Narnia the past two weekends.

"’We edged out Kong. It’s been neck-and-neck,’" Buena Vista’s Dennis Rice said Monday. "’These are two great movies in the marketplace that are doing great business.’"

"Narnia took in an estimated $32.8 million during the Friday-through-Monday period, nudging Universal’s King Kong out of the No. 1 spot and into second with a New Year’s weekend take of $31.6 million."

GET THE STORY.

The review of Brokeback Mountain at the U.S. bishops’ Office of Film and Broadcasting has been heavily edited.

THE REVISED REVIEW IS HERE.

Most of the edits are in a positive direction. Many of Harry Forbes’ over-the-top gushy raves about the gay cowboy love story have been removed. For example, his opening remark that the movie "arrives at last" has now been snipped.

The review still gives the moral aspects of the film a back seat (not even getting to them until late in the review), but some of the deficiencies previously noted have been fixed. For example, the review’s discussion of Catholic teaching on homosexual behavior now reads:

The Catholic Church’s teaching on homosexuality is unambiguous. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church says, homosexual acts are “intrinsically disordered" and the inclination itself is “objectively disordered.” At the same time, homosexually inclined persons “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity” (#2357 and #2358).

That’s a dramatic improvement over the original, which read:

As the Catholic Church makes a distinction between homosexual orientation and activity, Ennis and Jack’s continuing physical relationship is morally problematic.

The bottom line moral assessment of the film is better, but still a bit perplexing. It reads:

Use of the film as an advocacy vehicle to promote a morally objectionable message that homosexuality is equivalent to and as acceptable as heterosexuality does a disservice to its genuine complexity. While the actions taken by Ennis and Jack cannot be endorsed, the universal themes of love and loss ring true. The film creates characters of flesh and blood – not just the protagonists, but the wives, girlfriends, parents, and children — who give the film its artful substance.

However, the physicality of the men’s relationship and the film’s inherent sanctioning of their affair necessitate an O rating.

The opening statement that "use of the film as an advocacy vehicle . . . does a disservice to its genuine complexity" is perplexing. Talking about "use of the film" in the passive voice makes it sounds
like homosexual activists will be "using it" contrary to the true
"complexity" of the film. This generates a "Huh?" reaction.

As noted previously, the film sounds eminently suited to be an advocacy vehicle–and an especially dangerous and destructive one because it is made by a talented director (Ang Lee) who has imbued it with artistic qualities that enable it to better deliver its morally offensive payload to the audience.

Also perplexing is the statement that "the physicality of the men’s relationship and the film’s inherent sanctioning of their affair" are what necessitate an O rating.

Earlier the review cited two morally offensive grounds: (1) the homosexual nature of their relationship and (2) the fact that they commit adultery with each other after having married women.

The review goes out of its way to assert that the adultery aspect is "just as offensive from a Catholic perspective" (an assertion that is quite open to question; St. Thomas Aquinas would not concur), and so it’s no surprise to see the adultery aspect showing up in the justification for the O rating. But notice what’s changed: Previously it was noted that both homosexual behavior and the homosexual orientation itself are problematic (as are any sinful behaviors and sinful orientations–regardless of what the sin in question may be).

This has been downgraded in the final assessment to just "the physicality of the men’s relationship" making the movie morally offensive. As if it wouldn’t be offensive if the film communicated the message that it’s okay for two men to have an intense, romatic relationship as long as it doesn’t get physical?

This sounds like whoever is editing the review is still foot-dragging.

It’s not the physicality of the relationship that is the source of the problem, it’s the homosexuality of it.

At least, though, we now have an unambiguous O assigned to the film, without the finger-pointing at the Catholic News Service audience and the hinting that the film really still deserves only an L and that the OFB is being forced to assign it a rating other than what it believes the film deserves.

As you can see, not all gushy remarks about the film have been deleted. For example, there’s still the sonorous remark that in the film "the universal themes of love and loss ring true."

There’s are also the remarks that "The performances are superb" and "Australian Ledger may be the one to beat at Oscar time." The former may be true, and the latter probably is true–given Hollywood’s current tendency to reward iconoclastically morally offensive films at Oscar time (Cider House Rules [abortion], Million Dollar Baby [euthanasia], Boys Don’t Cry [transsexualism]).

It is not clear who is making these revisions, whether it is Harry Forbes or someone else. The OFB reviews do not carry bylines and the edited version of the review does not seem to appear on Catholic News Service (where Forbes’s byline was removed when the rating was changed from L to kinda-maybe-sorta O).

What is clear is that whoever did the edits has seen the film. In fact, there is new information in the review about the content of the film, including some that should have been given to the audience the first time.

The review is still flawed and still retains elements of Harry Forbes’ initial gushy rave review, but it’s a lot better than it was.

GET THE STORY.

NOTES:

• Unfortunatley, SDG only gets a brief mention in the story, but it’s nice to see him getting recognition from the MSM. (He’s also been cited by Ebert.)
• Love the NYTnoid headline: "New Cultural Approach for Conservative Christians: Reviews, Not Protests"–as if protesting movies was the only approach conservative Christians have had up till now, never having reviewed and thoughtfully interacted with and critiqued culture up to now.
• One of the other review services mentioned in the article–MovieGuide–is an exceptionally disingenuous entity. In a MASSIVE AND UNPROFESSIONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST the people involved act as a publicity agency for certain movies–which have a suspicious tendency to end up with positive reviews. They also have a knee-jerk Fundamentalist approach to films whose content they don’t like (i.e., "It’s morally objecitonable so it must be artistically lousy, too"). SEE HERE FOR MORE INFO.

SANTA CLAUS CONQUERS THE MARTIANS . . . MST3K STYLE!

Funniest Christmas episode of any series . . . ever!

Have watched it regularly every Christmas for several years.

In the words of Crow T. Robot, "There’s no tradition like a new tradition!"

This is just a note for B5 fans who may want to know about this:

Over the next year JMS is releasing a 15-volume set of all the scripts that he wrote for the TV series Babylon 5 (which is the vast majority of the episodes of the show).

These are the productions scripts and include scenes and dialogue that were filmed but never broadcast.

There are generally seven scripts per volume, plus a lot of bonus materials. The bonus materials include newly written introductions by JMS to the scripts, talking about how they originated, what was going on with the show at the time, what production issues were encountered, etc. The bonus materials also include behind-the-scenes photos from the set and a lot of production memos that he sent out during filming talking about the design of various props, alien races, and characters who were meant to be on the show (some of whom never were–like the The Boss and mysterious Mr. Jones).

I’ve seen the first two volumes (which are out), and they’re actually a lot cooler than I thought from the bare description of them.

Among other things, JMS explains things that weren’t necessarily clear on screen. F’rinstance: An early season 1 episode "Infection," which dealt with a piece of organic technology from the planet Ikara that grabbed a person and turned him into an "Ikaran war machine"–as Mr. Garibaldi once termed it. This episode was one of the first filmed and is generally regarded as one of the least successful of the show’s five year run (it’s basically a man in a rubber suit monster episode),

BUT

in volume 1 on the scripts, JMS explains something that could only have been obvious in hindsight (and wasn’t obvious to me even then until he pointed it out): the Ikaran device is (a) dark and scaly with lots of pointy, insect-like leg thingies, (b) organic technology, (c) that incorporates a living being into itself, (d) seizes control of his brain for its own purposes, and (e) turns him into a form of armament.

Does that sound like anything ELSE we encounter on Babylon 5?

It’s SHADOW TECH.

The Ikarans got ahold of some left over shadow tech from the last Great War and used it to try to impose genetic and ideological purity on their planet, leading to them all being wiped out (since nobody is ever pure enough).

The tech in question was one of the things that the Shadows used to create infantry units since, as JMS points out, an army needs to control the ground as well as the sky.

So. It’s still a man in a rubber suit monster episode, but at least it’s a man in a rubber suit monster episode that fits in to the overall shadow mythology that JMS created for his universe.

The volumes also contain alternate, unfilmed versions of some scripts. For example, volume 1 contains the original, unfilmed version of the series pilot, "The Gathering," which is significantly different from the one that finally got shot.

Volume 3 (coming out in January) is set to explain why actor Michael O’Hare (Cmdr. Sinclair) was forced out of the show by The Powers That Be and the introduction of Bruce Boxleitner (and who ALMOST got his role but at the last minute didn’t).

But the really COOL thing will be volume 15, which will be given FREE (including free shipping) ONLY to those who’ve gotten the rest of the set.

What will be in volume 15?

Take it away, JMS:

"It will also [in addition addition to a bunch of other stuff]contain the Babylon 5 writers bible…the production draft of "The Gathering" as a companion to the original draft offered in volume one…and something very special."

"For over ten years, fans have asked "What would Babylon 5 have been like had Sinclair stayed?" Well, that question will be answered in this volume."

"After we finished the movie, but before we got the series going, WB asked to see a breakdown on this five-year arc thingie. So I wrote a six or seven page, single spaced outline of the ENTIRE FIVE YEARS with Sinclair still in place. The document makes for fascinating reading when compared with the series as it developed. NOT ONLY THAT, but the same document has a brief outline for A POTENTIAL BABYLON 5 SEQUEL SERIES, which would have been entitled BABYLON PRIME."

"Finally, by popular request, the nearly-legendary alternate version of the script for “The Exercise of Vital Powers” containing the Londo/G’Kar seduction scene, written in as an elaborate practical joke on the actors, will also be included.

So, if you want

GET INFO ON THE B5 SCRIPTS.

Steven Greydanus’s review of Brokeback Mountain IS UP.

As you might guess, he gives it significant marks for artistic merit (three and a half stars) but gives it a -4 moral/spirital rating (which is as bad as it can get on his scale), resulting in it having no appropriate audience and an overall recommendability of F.

He thus was able to separate the artistic craftsmanship of the film from its moral content, which is a very important distinction to make. Something can appear beautiful and even moving and still be gravely immorally.

"And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light" (2 Cor. 11:14).

That’s the thing about sin: If it wasn’t in some way attractive to people, they wouldn’t do it.

Steve also bring out a point that I had been thinking about: When a morally offensive movie has artistic merit, that makes it MORE dangerous, not less, because it is better able to draw the viewer into the immoral worldview of the film than a ham-fisted, low-quality film.

Steve also points out that there are NO sympathetic heterosexual male characters in the film. Homosexual males can get sympathy, and so can heterosexual females, but not heterosexual males. He writes:

The film allows its sexually omnivorous protagonists to be morally ambiguous, and its straight women can be likable or sympathetic. Yet essentially every straight male character in the film is not only unsympathetic, but unsympathetic precisely in his embodiment of masculinity.

In the end, in its easygoing, nonpolemical way, Brokeback Mountain is nothing less than a critique not just of heterosexism but of masculinity itself, and thereby of human nature as male and female. It’s a jaundiced portrait of maleness in crisis — a crisis extending not only to the sexual identities of the two central characters, but also to the validity of manhood as exemplified by every other male character in the film. It may be the most profoundly anti-western western ever made, not only post-modern and post-heroic, but post-Christian and post-human.

GET THE REVIEW.

I wanted to touch back on something that I meant to mention regarding the non-retraction retraction issued by Catholic News Service regarding its erroneous ranking of Brokeback Mountain as an "L" film ("limited audiences") rather than an "O" film ("morally offensive").

Here is the text of what they wrote:

Editor’s Note: "Brokeback Mountain," originally rated L (limited adult audience, films whose problematic content many adults would find troubling), has been reclassified O — morally offensive. This has been done because the serious weight of the L rating — which restricts films in that category to those who can assess, from a Catholic perspective, the moral issues raised by a movie — is, unfortunately, misunderstood by many. Because there are some in this instance who are using the L rating to make it appear the church’s — or the USCCB’s — position on homosexuality is ambiguous, the classification has been revised specifically to address its moral content.

The part in red is how the L rating is normally explained, and it’s fine. That’s what the L rating means.

But the part in blue is a misinterpretation of the L rating that reveals something interesting.

Note that in blue the editor says that L restricts films "to those who can assess, from a Catholic perspective, the moral issues raised by a movie."

If that’s what L means then y’know what? EVERY movie should be rated L.

NOBODY should be watching a movie if he is unable to correctly assess the moral issues raised by it. If you’re going to get suckered into thinking something immoral in a movie is really moral then you SHOULDN’T be watching that film.

I don’t care whether it’s The Incredibles or Silence of the Lambs. If you can’t accurately handle the moral issues a film raises–whatever those may be–then that film is not for you.

This reinterpretation of the L rating completely steamrollers the need for all other ratings–including O. I mean, if you’re a moral theologian and can correctly "assess, form a Catholic perspective, the moral issues raised by a movie" and that’s a sufficient reason NOT to give it an O then guess what: No films need to be given an O since SOMEBODY (at least the film critic who would have otherwise given them an O, and if not him then the pope) will be able to assess the moral issues they raise.

So ALL films really should have an L.

Clearly this is not what is meant by the ratings system or there would be no other ratings. No A-I, A-II, A-III, or O.

The conventional (in red) description of what L means is correct: These are films that have a limited audience because they contain material that many adults would find troubling.

"Many adults would find troubling" is a different criterion than "morally offensive according to the teaching of the Church." There are a lot of things that many adults would find troubling that aren’t in themselves morally offensive. Showing gruesome murders, for example, is troubling to many, but the mere showing of them isn’t morally offensive as long as the film contains a moral structure that doesn’t ENDORSE the gruesome murders.

Same goes for showing immoral heterosexual and homosexual relationships. That can be troubling for many adults, but it isn’t morally offensive if the film doesn’t ENDORSE these relationships.

So if a film shows evil but does not endorse it, that’s reason to go L.

But if it shows evil AND endorses it then that’s reason to go O.

One of the things presupposed by the distinction between the L and the O rating is that L films are NOT morally offensive. If they were then they should get an O.

As I’ve pointed out before, if the central theme of a movie is morally offensive (e.g., an endorsed-by-the-film homosexual relationship that is what the film is all about–or an endorsed-by-the-film extramarital heterosexual one that is what the film is all about) then the film is morally offensive. (And if the central theme of a movie being morally offensive doesn’t qualify it as a morally offensive picture then I’d like to know what on earth COULD.)

It doesn’t matter whatever aristic merits the film may have in presenting its central theme. If the central theme is morally offensive then those artistic merits simply serve to help the film in delivering an immoral payload to the audience. They’re sugar for the poison pill, and there is all the more reason to slap an O on it so that the faithful can be warned.

Note, incidentally, the elitist attitude of the non-retraction retraction: We who are the cognoscenti and are able to "assess" the moral issues raised by Brokeback Mountain are able to "handle it" and so it is only an L, but because of complaints from the masses, who are too ill-informed to "assess" the moral issues it raises, we’ve got to slap an O on it even though that’s not what it really deserves.

So the non-retraction retraction is not just resentful (blaming the audience) and disingenuous (appearing to classify something as morally offensive but indicating that it really isn’t) and hypocritical (giving something a  rating that one doesn’t believe it deserves), it’s also elitist (viewing the audience as too stupid to handle the truth).