“Unfortunately, there are several needlessly explicit scenes. Indeed, the American rating was initially X, but downgraded to R. The scenes are not particularly erotic — more akin to rape — and this is why I can recommend a viewing for those that are able to bracket this aspect as an unfortunate pandering for ticket sales.”

How are you defining erotic? Why would more erotic sex scenes cause you to not recommend the film and yet a rape scene should be viewed differently in terms of liberty?

I ask this question because I’ve been having similar discussions with a friend of mine. She would contend that violence in film is permissible and even necessary while nudity and sex is not. She would say that any christian who views films containing nudity or sex is in sin. My position has been that violence and sex/nudity have their place in art (just as they have their place in the Bible). Every individual christian must decide what they can handle and we must not judge others in this area for it is an issue of Christian liberty (no one should see any film that they believe will cause them to sin). I would say that violence as well as sex/nudity should be analyzed in terms of their context and execution: were they benificial to the story/characters?, did the scenes fit within the context of the writer’s vision?, or were they merely marketing ploys meant to arouse the viewer’s flesh (tasteless violence and pornography)? All of these will be evaluated within the whole of the film’s quality.

Does this make sense to you? Where would you stand on this issue?