United Way campaign celebration
Your youth sports photos
Fairfield honors service organizations
Home > Blogs > Sir Critic on Cinema > Archives > 2008 > August > 04 > Entry
Praising movies for being “clean.”
Over at Roger Ebert’s Answer Man column, a reader takes him to task for disliking Mamma Mia. A Tom Kilpatrick of Nashville writes: “I went to see “Mamma Mia!” and as a 65-year-old ABBA fan, I loved it. It was refreshing. No violence. Loving, exciting, entertaining, what a movie should be. Don’t berate a movie just because you don’t like it. As a critic, you should be intellectually honest and not self-serving.”
Ebert has already responded to the reader’s “Don’t berate a movie just because you don’t like it,” remark, but Kilpatrick makes another dubious point when he praises the movie for having “No violence.”
OK, WAIT a minute here. Mamma Mia! is worthwhile because it has no violence? That’s like lauding an episode of Sesame Street for not singing that C is for Carnage. Of course a movie based on an ABBA-infused musical has no violence! The only way Mamma Mia! could be violent is if they set “Waterloo” as a musical backdrop against the battle that Napoleon lost.
I’m also bothered by the overall implication that because movies have no sex and no violence, and no swearing, that makes them good movies. Wrong, wrong, wrong!
I frequently hear these remarks when it comes to classic movies. The likes of Casablanca and Singin’ in the Rain get praised because they don’t have any of that awful R-rated filth we have today. But the same backwards viewpoint applies to modern films.
The belief that sex and violence and profanity are inherently bad leads to ridiculous overgeneralizations like “Oh, that Titanic would be a great movie if only it didn’t have that AWFUL nudity!” Or “I’d like my kids to see Saving Private Ryan, but it’s so violent and there’s so much profanity.”
Ludicrous. In both of those cases, the sex and the violence serve their respective stories. The movies would not have the same impact without them. They’re not there just for show, they’re there because they’re the best way to make a point. That’s what the creators of the so-called “Clean Flicks” edits that remove these scenes fail to understand. Just because a movie isn’t suitable for the whole family doesn’t make it a bad movie.
Yes, movies made during the “golden age” have a certain sheen to them that today’s movies do not, but it’s not because they’re “clean.” It’s because of an attention to story and character that is greatly diminished today.
Singin’ in the Rain and Casablanca aren’t great movies because they don’t have profanity or explicit sex or violence. They’re great movies because they have great stories, characters and filmmaking craft. It’s because there’s never been a goodbye line like “We’ll always have Paris” and it’s because singing in the rain can be the most joyous act on earth the way Gene Kelly does it.
The bottom line is this: I would much rather praise a movie for what it has, than for what it does not have.
Permalink | Comments (3) | Post your comment | Categories: Sir Critic muses
Comments
By SRCputt
August 8, 2008 2:56 PM | Link to this
I’m not angry that there is a lot of carnage in war movies. I’m disturbed by the amount of carnage in war.By Kim S.
August 4, 2008 2:31 PM | Link to this
A good movie should have a solid story, well-written dialogue and above average performances. Violence/nudity/whatever has nothing to do with it. I agree, it’s story, character development and acting that is sorely lacking in most cinema today. Part of the problem is the fact that audiences want to be spoonfed - audiences do want an allusion, they want to see everything onscreen. If you don’t like something in a movie, you can always choose not to see it. Yes, “Mama Mia” was totally clean - except for the fact that is was complete and utter garbage.By Allie D.
August 4, 2008 1:28 PM | Link to this
I read that very same Answer Man yesterday and was incredibly annoyed by its inherent contradictions about intellectual honesty, and yes, about the whole “clean” issue as well. And you are so right. Violence, nudity, swearing, and all of those things which earn a movie its “R” do not a bad movie make unless we’re talking about a movie like Bad Boys 2 that spends 2 1/2 hours trying to find ways to make the audience feel as violated as possible. That is not to say that a movie that is well-acted and produced, that is aware of the fact that it is exploiting its genre, like “Shoot Em Up,” can’t be great fun to watch either. There is a way that a film can go over the top without being too garish to admire, or rather so garish that you are forced to admire its audacity, where the things that make it “bad” make it worth seeing. That is a rare movie and most filmmakers who attempt this fail miserably at it (Michael Bay) because they pay so much attention to the effects that they forget to develop characters we actually like. I know I’m wandering on here, but I want to close with a final point. For those who insist on watching only movies that are “clean,” I’d recommend simply steering clear of certain genres (like war movies, for instance), rather than watching the butchered version of another person’s artistic vision. Either that, or understand that the human condition consists of both clean AND dirty elements and a well-balanced individual can experience both kinds without feeling shame. A movie is not supposed to be the reflection of one’s own personal morals and values reflected on the screen.