influence of one's faith/religion or genre preference on evaluating a story ?

[Randall_Oelerich]

What do you all think about how one's faith/religion and/or story genre preference influences how one might evaluate a story/script? I suspect not much influence for a drama or comedy, but what about for a story that has rape, torture, nudity, misogyny, homosexuality/lesbianism, swearing in it, or any combination of the aforementioned?

My own brother refused to read my synopsis for a drama screenplay I am writing only because the title contained the word 'suicide' which he found offensive to his faith. I know a film music composer (here on dvxuser, still looking to break in) who refused to score the music to a short film unless I promised to remove all usage of the F-word from the screenplay, because of his christian ideals (needless to say I am not about to cave to something like that, geesh).

To be honest, if I were to have read the screenplay for Hostel before it was a film, I would have been quite repulsed by the story, as that story crosses the line for me personally. Kind of the same for The Strangers-- after watching that film I felt it was cheap, lousy unhappy ending, not much to it, violence without redeeming qualities-- but Roque Pictures made it and it made a sheeetload of cash and return on investment ($9M budget, $82M box office).

So back to the question--- to what degree does or would a story's use of torture, nudity, homosexuality, rape, or misogyny (not necessarily all of those in a story) affect your review of the screenplay, could you evaluate such a screenplay objectively? Or if you are honest with yourself, do you think you might unfairly downgrade such a screenplay?

 

[Gary Huff]

So back to the question--- to what degree does or would a story's use of torture, nudity, rape, or misogyny (not necessarily all of those in a story) affect your review of the screenplay, could you evaluate such a screenplay objectively? Or if you are honest with yourself, do you think you might unfairly downgrade such a screenplay?

I absolutely have no issues with content except for what I would consider "exploitative"...and that is defined by me as usage of such things as a marketing in and not something that actually serves purpose in the story. I saw a film once that its producers proclaimed as having one of the longest rape scenes in cinema (about 30 minutes). And the film felt that it was crafted solely from that germ of an idea of a 30 minute rape scene, with an incredibly poor story wrapped around it, including the events leading up to the rape. Couple that with extremely poor visuals and I was, frankly, insulted that these female producers were so infatuated with the idea of doing this raw, lengthy, rape scene that they didn't care about anything else apparently.

That's what it takes to get me up in arms over something like that.

 

[Justin Kuhn]

It may effect my opinion of the story but if a distasteful scene or something about the scene serves the story well enough, I would like to think I could get over it even if I found the material distasteful.

 

[CallaghanFilms]

Scorsese does his thing in spite of his own personal piousness.

Work is work is work.

 

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

Everyone is different and entitled to their own opinion, however people should only work with others who share a common belief in the project at hand. If you dislike a prospective job's subject matter, decline it. Seems easy enough.

 

[TimAkers]

There are obvious lines that people should never cross. However, in that context, if work is done as art, which art is considered endless, then offensiveness really holds no value. My wife once told me something that has helped me get through many, many painful scenes, "nothing is offensive, as soon as it is, it's praised, and the very idea of offense is negated by its own offense, for acceptance of praise." Sounds kind of backwards, but is totally true. We praise violence and head toward it. We pay to watch UFC, Boxing, and full-physical contact sports. There are videos on YouTube of teenagers and adults alike putting up "fail" compilations. But, for some reason, we feel excluded when we are directly involved, like supporting a script that's against our "moral" values. Here's a secret, there are no moral values. Everyone views a situation completely differently. Murder is only against the law because it's killing our own race. We actually give trophy's for catching the largest fish, or killing the biggest Buck. Why? Because, it's programmed into us that it's for survival, and we should get praise for it.

You raise an interesting question, but, I feel it's an endless cycle which will only leave you with the same conclusion. Make up your own mind.

With that said, I am writing a novel right now that's sort of post-apocalyptic-ish, mainly because, I find the whole survival thing trivial and want to try to explore that world from my imagination. I wrote a short piece in this story about an elevator plummeting to its doom, with six or so passengers in it. I was going to have children in the elevator and was going to distinguish all passengers, including "women and children." I changed it thinking it was too dark. But, I was disturbed, as even though I changed it, I originally wrote it tastefully-tragic. My wife liked the original tragedy, as she said that it gave the reason for survival so much more meaning and importance, that it was very important to the story. However, my personal focus group, except my wife, would sneer at the fact that I would write things like that in. They wouldn't get it.

No matter what, you will offend someone, but, if you do what you feel is right, or what others call passion, then you will also find supporters too.

"In the end, we as the human race need each other. Neglect the idea of ethnicity, color, or even religious creed, as we are all just carbon and chemistry. And, for some reason, each on of us feels we are somehow different, that we are only sub-human, and that age or mortality doesn't affect us. Well, it does. And, no matter what happens in life, we can't outrun death. The reason humans continue their existence, our existence, is so we can achieve the next reign in the evolutionary scale. It's our only purpose, to move on."

 

[Randall_Oelerich]

I absolutely have no issues with content except for what I would consider "exploitative"...and that is defined by me as usage of such things as a marketing in and not something that actually serves purpose in the story. I saw a film once that its producers proclaimed as having one of the longest rape scenes in cinema (about 30 minutes). And the film felt that it was crafted solely from that germ of an idea of a 30 minute rape scene, with an incredibly poor story wrapped around it, including the events leading up to the rape. Couple that with extremely poor visuals and I was, frankly, insulted that these female producers were so infatuated with the idea of doing this raw, lengthy, rape scene that they didn't care about anything else apparently. That's what it takes to get me up in arms over something like that.

We might be thinking of the same film-- Irreversible perhaps? I remember that extended rape scene and thought it went far beyond what was needed to make the point, it was so long and violent and graphic.

 

[nosys70]

if you speak with real professional about professional matter, i think there will be no judgement of an idea, unless it contains things that could be counter productive with your goals. (impairing the feasibility, limiting audience). So if you talk with a professional about creating a blockbuster large audience movie and you come with a scenario containing a 30min rape scene, it is not rocket science to see there is a problem here, not about the rape, but about matching the content and goals.
Unfortunately we live in a world were 'nice, good looking, happy end, rated ,politically correct" is driving everything because the world is complex and if you want
to fulfill a project you better need to hurt nobody, not because it creates problems, but because problems cost time/money to be solved.
i think you also share the idea that a good movie is seen by the largest audience possible and possibly make enough money to avoid bankruptcy, so even these 2 simples
goals already implies many limits.

There a tons of well sold movies that are pure violence or stupidity, and the art in it is to able to create/sell the product with nobody standing against for the reason it is violent or stupid.
With religion it is even more difficult because you can raise problem without even the will to do it.
for sexuality it is pretty obvious were the red line is, but we are so fed up with this , that nobody still care about it, except they guys rating audiences for your movies.
Violence, well , i think we have seen already all what is possible on our screens at least once, so except sending you project in a dark sub-categorie of extreme-hardcore-gore, you take no risk here.
and finally if you speak with somebody raising concerns with his own faith about your project, it is probably you are not working with the right people.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

What do you all think about how one's faith/religion and/or story genre preference influences how one might evaluate a story/script? I suspect not much influence for a drama or comedy, but what about for a story that has rape, torture, nudity, misogyny, homosexuality/lesbianism, swearing in it, or any combination of the aforementioned?

I go somewhat the other 'way'... I find scripts that are heavily imbued with 'every hopeful religious' nostrums to be ones I would 'pass on'. I don't read them... I don't mind scripts which use religious themes, say, "The Exorcist"(1973), read the book, then saw the movie... but religious scripts that are on a par with the Hallmark productions, I find not only boring, but philosophically objectionable to most of the time.

I personally would prefer 'more sex, nudity' than more conventional 'religiousness'.

Even when one looks at a certain primary text of current religious beliefs one finds stories of 'rape, torture, murder, death', yet when a 'believer' gets a hold of this sort of material, it becomes pretty bland. I actually laud Mel Gibson on his 'torture porn', "Passion of the Christ"(2004). The closest one can get to that sort of depiction was in the 15-16th Century where more blood guts and gore were being painted for Roman Church art... the Protestants were stripping their churches of imagery, and along with it visual realism.

 

[Name's Luke Y'all]

So back to the question--- to what degree does or would a story's use of torture, nudity, homosexuality, rape, or misogyny (not necessarily all of those in a story) affect your review of the screenplay, could you evaluate such a screenplay objectively? Or if you are honest with yourself, do you think you might unfairly downgrade such a screenplay?

The only screenplays I have a problem with are horror. Just coz I scare easily.

But I wouldn't downgrade, I'd hand it to someone else.

 

[Postmaster]

All religious extremists are obsessed with words and wording.
Personally I don't have any dogma to protect, so I'm free to read anything I like.

I actually laud Mel Gibson on his 'torture porn', "Passion of the Christ"(2004).

Yup, that was quite impressive, also loved the use of antique languages - best Jesus film ever IMHO.

 

[Rolf Silber]

......could you evaluate such a screenplay objectively?

For principal reasons I believe there can be no objectivity in evaluating a screenplay or any other work of art - the only thing one can achieve is a kind of professional distance or detachement. If something really goes against convictions or emotions the grade of distance and detachement one may allow oneself to have may be defined by how much you need the job to survive and make your living or your career - including how much self-respect you feel able to loose in the process if things go wronger than expected. I'd feel a bit hard pressed to make a, say, pro-"church-of-the-flying-spaghetti-monster"-movie if I felt that this church is an abomination of my religious beliefs ...... but if my banker would tell me that I have a problem with my mortgage I'd probably say: "Oh well, it's just noodles, more or less...."

 

[nycineaste]

food for thought: horror movies often have christian undertones- Frankenstein pays for trying to create life, those that deal in occult forces usually pay with life and soul, and even slasher movie teens get their just desserts for being hedonists. And in movies featuring bad guys, there's usually a "less bad" guy whose the hero (Goodfellas, Reservoir Dogs- who makes away with the money? Pink does). Almost every story ever told is a morality tale to some degree.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

...and even slasher movie teens get their just desserts for being hedonists...

Which is why I'm working on a postapocalyptic script wherein the 'prudes' die out because the hedonists are able to reproduce quicker, even when partying hardy, have greater intragroup bonding, and the prudes are splinted by doctrinal dogma (as opposed to dogme... or is that a film dogma...) and obsessive compulsive attention to morals and ritual.

 

[mail4joeg]

Well of course I'm disturbed by some of the stuff in this thread. For starters the concepts of religion and morality are obfuscated and confused, as if they were the same thing. They are not. Chimpanzees display morality, more so than a lot of humans I could name.

The idea of conflating the term "professional" with mercenary whore with no moral judgment is equally disturbing to me. I disagree, and a lot of others will no doubt as well.

What the art is saying actually does matter. That is what attracts people to it.

There is also a confusing of content with the message and intent. That's simplistic and immature thinking. Often the religious bent use these checklist box rules to determine how they feel about something.

All art is propaganda. You cannot separate the intent from the content. That is what makes it art. It exists for a reason. It communicates. What it communicates is for individuals to decide for themselves. They can interpret all sorts of things that weren't intended, and that is common.

"Here's a secret, there are no moral values"

Utter nonsense.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

Well of course I'm disturbed by some of the stuff in this thread. For starters the concepts of religion and morality are obfuscated and confused, as if they were the same thing. ...

A set of moral codes, as promulgated by a religion, are 'conflated' by design with that religious system.

For example, I wish that my 'moral code' that states, 'if a naked woman puts me in a head lock, I am morally obligated to sexually satisfy her, or at least make perhaps a vain attempt at such'(well... provided the headlock was indicative of desire to be sexually intimate with me... sometimes some people get confused on such signals... but I digress...), were treated with the same 'respect' that some other sets of moral codes are treated...

Since part of the site 'rules' include no discussion of 'religion'... I'll leave this example to setup for 'why I would view some scripts, in my frame work, quite differently than someone else who holds to a different framework on 'right conduct'.

As it is, I can think of 'moral systems' without recourse to an underlying religious belief(*), I can't think of a religious system that does not also include a statement of the moral, that is, 'right conduct'.

*Which of course some higher order primates exhibit as well.

 

[Rolf Silber]

The idea of conflating the term "professional" with mercenary whore with no moral judgment is equally disturbing to me. I disagree, and a lot of others will no doubt as well.

a) this is not what I wrote and b) I definitely need to use the irony-button more often.... but...

I was raised heavy-duty catholic. I left the church the day I was legally old enough to do so. I believe that most religions - catholizism included - are conceptionally much too narrow-minded.

So, if I woud be offered a job by a - say - catholic organisation, this in itself would be no reason to decline. I would not like it because working for the church ..... naaah.... not really. But: Okay, someone has to pay the rent, maybe. And this someone is me. And probably the project is interesting in some way.

So I would have to ask myself some questions: What kind of catholicism the project wants to convey to others? More the reactionary, black-catholic "opus dei" kind? I decline. More the "open church" in the sense of John 23 or probably pope Francis? This would, above my basic reservation to work for a catholic organisation, be a factor to say "it doesn't really give me the hots, but okay..."

Now would this project convey the morals of pope Francis concerning women and sexuality? I decline. Would it convey his position concerning the poor? I may be interested - especially if I had no other job. Because, see above, the rent...

Would I work for a, say, a religious leader who would ask for another religious minority to be exterminated by sword and fire? No. Clearly not.

Call all of that a compromise? Yes. Detest compromise? Sure. You can do that if you are sure that all you do in your life is exactly what you wanted to do in the first place and is in perfect congruence with you morals.

There was a painter once. A brute, some say. Caravaggio was his name. He worked for the church often. He had to make compromises to survive. He needed to lend his art and his abilities to those in power. He very probably needed to bend his own morality at some points to get a job and to avoid getting his head chopped of at others. Still he would produce incredible works of art - some of the greatest of his time. He revolutionized painting both in technique as in the subjects he chose or/and how he treated them. Did he compromise? You bet he did.

Hell: Even for Leni Riefenstahl, who is probably the film-maker I personally detest more than most others, not even her moral compromising during the "3rd Reich" would be the point to criticise her the most - but for her prima-donna'esque refusal to confront herself with the consequences later and to really come clear about her role. And if you ask: What has this to do with religion, my answer would be that I believe that Nazism was in its core a religious cult.... but: That's another discussion.

So: Do I believe I am a mercenary and my colleagues are whores? No. But like bank clerks who have to stuff themselves into suits they probably would not wear if they were free to decide, we have to make some compromises some times concerning our convictions. Or does everybody here who works, say, in commercials really believe that the famous "pudding-and-sausage-on-a-stick" is THE greatest an healthiest product in the world?

And, yes, I will use the irony-button more often....

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

So, if I woud be offered a job by a - say - catholic organisation, this in itself would be no reason to decline. I would not like it because working for the church ..... naaah.... not really. But: Okay, someone has to pay the rent, maybe. And this someone is me. And probably the project is interesting in some way.

Unless the treatment of subjects is 'against my moral code'... I have no problem with working on a project where the writer is 'religious'... I think what is more likely the case, that such a writer would have a problem with me working on their project, for fear that I'd insinuate some heretical view by some steganographic means... ranging from backtracking at some nearly subaudio level some secret message like "Be sure to drink your Ovaltine"... or some such...
to camera angles that are 'coded' to give rise to doubts... as in "I have doubts"... at theologically important moments...

 

[Rolf Silber]

Why did I have the feeling all the time that a lot of the painters working for the catholic church would ... subliminally, one could say ... transfer the message to me that naked women are.... ummhh... somehow interesting.....? Those renaissance people.... ;-)

I do not care what religion one has as long as he/she shares with me some basic rules: Don't force me to believe what you believe. Don't hurt people for what you believe they don't believe. Don't hire me if you believe I have to be a believer.

Else: All gods are equal.

 

[nosys70]

it is right that professional does not equal to "mercenary whore with no moral judgment". It would be the contrary of a professional who needs ethic, moral, faith and so on... to put a judgment on the project, see where and who it can hurt and then make proposal or warnings about the project.
But you can not filter things on your personal view, because 1) you would miss a lot of issues 2) limiting a project based on your own faith would be silly.
At best in this case you would efeectivily better refuse to work on it, not because the project is not good, but because you are not able to bring the best you can.