Christian Actors and the 3rd Commandment

[littlepeople]

Easy test here: Imagine you are in conversation with your friend, pastor, elder, mother-in-law whichever....you are relating some of the dialogue from the film to this friend. Would you censor the film's content to your friend i.e. "f-word, n-word, g-d" Or would you just repeat in conversation what was said in the film. I myself would censor because I feel that if I have said the word in retelling the film, i've broken the command.

---------- Post added at 04:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:48 PM ----------

btw i think if you are able argue that an actor can speak 3rd commandment violations without sinning, then you can likewise argue that an actor can perform 7th commandment violations without sinning. I think thats just consistent

 

[he beholds]

I guess two young Christians could have sex on TV to illustrate Sampson's life.

Nice and succinct. This highlights the basic disagreement on the thread: Is an actor pretending to take the Lord's name in vain or actually doing it, assuming the action is presented in a negative light within the context of the movie? Some of us (including me) think it's actual; others classify it as pretend. How do we determine who is right?

---------- Post added at 04:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:35 PM ----------

Here's how I would answer my own question: Some things shouldn't even be pretended on film, even though it might make it difficult to tell the story otherwise. I don't think two young Christians should pretend to fornicate on camera, and I would place blasphemy in the same category.

I think the couple can pretend to fornicate if they don't have to sin to do so. If they don't have to actually be or appear to be naked and they aren't being suggestive, but instead they just close the door and the audience gets why, then I don't think the actors are sinning, even if their characters are. I don't think an actor can pretend to take the Lord's name in vain. I mean, a lot of people here wouldn't allow an artist to pretend to draw Christ, even if they acknowledged that it was just a pretend version of him. I don't think it's physically possible to pretend to take the Lord's name in vain without doing it.

 

[au5t1n]

If they don't have to actually be or appear to be naked and they aren't being suggestive, but instead they just close the door and the audience gets why, then I don't think the actors are sinning, even if their characters are.

Sure, but that's not "on camera." The equivalent here would be someone closing the door and the audience understanding that, behind the door, the character took the Lord's name in vain.

 

[Jack K]

Jack is right to note that there are certainly times when reenactment of stories (where biblical characters misused the name of God) for the sake of instruction (e.g. to kids) can be proper. However, I think that, for the most part, we are considering an entirely different idea from instruction: namely, entertainment. That is the primary purpose of most movies, right? (I know, there are exceptions, but they are few - and what many of those seek to instruct is equally godless.) Can the premise honestly be defended that the misuse of God's name is in any way justifiable for the sake of entertainment? I think not. That, then, disqualifies the vast, vast majority of such productions from any reasonably defensible position.

The line between entertainment and poignant commentary is well blurred in good movies and novels. But I generally agree with your point. If our only purpose is to entertain ourselves, there's no defensible reason to have a character misuse God's name.

 

[steadfast7]

The point of this thread is not whether stuff on TV and movies is, or can be, always edifying. Clearly it's not. It is also not the point (and difficult to argue) that things done for entertainment vs. other reasons constitute varying degrees of sin. It's not that simple. The point is whether a Christian actor is guilty of 2nd commandment violation when he is verbalizing words that are written in a script for him to deliver as a character in a production. Censoring your hearsay vulgarities at Granny's house, and getting naked with someone not your spouse fall into other categories of sin and only confuse this issue. Also, why is it OK for Lord of the Rings to be full of portrayals of graphic violence and murder, but we're relieved that he didn't swear - now our kids can watch it. Anyone else sense the double standard here?

No one is saying you can "perform a violation without sinning" - this is a clear contradiction. We are asking whether it is a violation in the first place. It is begging the question to keep saying that the words themselves are blasphemous, for then we do charge biblical authors like Matthew for writing (and the Church for copying and propagating) the most blasphemous words that were ever spoken against the Holy Spirit. Here is at least one case in which the all-or-nothing definition of "violation" needs amendment. My argument is that an author writing words for a character to say and an actor delivering those words is not necessarily a sin in either case.

---------- Post added at 11:14 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:05 AM ----------

Consider Bob, who did the scripture reading on Sunday. The text is from Matthew 12. Because it's a narrative, Bob decides to 'dramatize' his reading a little for effect, inflecting his voice differently when Matthew is narrating and when a character is speaking. He comes to 12:24, and puts on a Pharisees voice, “It is only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this man casts out demons!”

Did Bob just blaspheme the Holy Spirit?

 

[littlepeople]

I am quoting and rephrasing you, not to be offensive, Dennis. Rather, I think it will be helpful in understanding why your argument seems lacking. I'm just saying. this sounds a little harsh, and I don't mean for it to.

you said: "My argument is that an author writing words for a character to say and an actor delivering those words is not necessarily a sin in either case."

and I say for consistency sake, you would likewise need to allow that an author writing sex acts for a character to perform and an actor performing those sex acts is not necessarily a sin in either case."

You seem to be allowing one, but not the other.

 

[steadfast7]

Thanks for challenging me on this Brandon. It's tricky, I'll admit.
First, what do you mean by "writing sex acts for a character to say"? Are you referring to portrayals of cyber sex? In terms of performing sex acts (p0rn), this is wrong. Pretending to perform sex acts is probably wrong, but not because violates the 7th properly, but violates other commands, like adultery in the mind perhaps? But how does one define sex? for some, kissing on screen might as well be sex. Again, we're not dealing with sexuality on this thread, so it's an evasive argument that distracts from the issue, in my opinion.

But here, we're dealing with words. Words written, words spoken. Many seem to argue that the words themselves, in whatever form, are blasphemous. I think this needs heavy qualification lest we impute sin on even the Biblical authors. This suggests that there are times, like in reporting, re-enacting, and portraying, when the words do not entail a violation of the command.

 

[littlepeople]

To your first question, "say" was a copy paste error. It should have been "perform". And I believe where we disagree is over reporting vs. portrayal and reenactment. I think any sin can be reported without the messenger sinning (scripture, courtroom, etc) Portrayal and reenactment are what an actor does, which is what is being discussed. Even by breaking down the word "reenactment," its pretty clear that action must be taken not simply the conveying of information. (BTW this is the fruit of a personal struggle as a song-writer, and in high-school an actor.)

Why would you consider p0rn a sin? is it not a reenactment? If the crux of the issue is the actor's separation of his heart (sin) from his body (portrayal), then I think the same would apply to on-stage sex. Either both are not sinful because the actor is not sinning in his heart, only portraying the sin of another; or both are sinful for obvious reasons.

I won't spend much time defending scripture because it doesn't need my poor defense, but I suggest that scripture is merely reporting. So its not under fire in this thread.

 

[steadfast7]

Again, I don't have a problem with your argument regarding portrayals of sexuality. You're spot on, but that's another thread!
Regarding reporting and portraying, I see them in the same category with only a change from a 3rd person to 1st person perspective. Bob's dramatized reading of the Matthew passage shows it's not that easy to make the separation.

the real crux of the issue is whether an actor is himself when he is in character delivering lines. I say no, he's not himself. He's in character, and the words are not his, he is only conveying them (like in a courtroom, good example ). Are those words coming from his mind, aimed at God, with the intention of dishonouring him? Not any more than Matthew's (or Bob's) words were theirs.

 

[littlepeople]

"He's in character, and the words are not his, he is only conveying them ...... Are those words coming from his mind, aimed at God, with the intention of dishonouring him?"

i'm not sure how you are exempting on-stage sex from a similar justification. It's not really another subject, God's law is a whole. If one is permissible by the grounds you provide, the other must follow.

 

[bpkantor]

An interesting point to bring up would be those movies that tell biblical stories. I'm sure there has been a movie made which tells the story of David and Goliath, maybe even most of the actors were believers. Is it wrong for a believer to play Goliath and to say what he said? Is that different from actually reading the story from the bible and saying the words Goliath said?

For the record I really don't like watching movies much anyways, and would agree that 99.9% of the uses of God's name are usually in vain, but I bring up what I do just to try and form a principle of how we determine what it means to use the name in vain.

 

[steadfast7]

Yes, God's law is a whole. So, should "on-stage" sex, then, be viewed differently from on-stage violence and murder? Do you reel from war movies, as you do from sexually explicit ones? I think the preoccupation and sensitivity to sex is due to our culture and the potency of it to stimulate the flesh. If we're going to condemn the sins that are portrayed on the screen, we should condemn them all.

But, ok, let's talk about sex... outside of the p0rn industry, on screen sex is not anymore real than the violence of professional wrestling. It's all fake and very technically choreographed, and the actors are professional enough to not even be aroused, most of the time. I believe two actors could conceivably do an entire sex scene and not violate the 7th commandment at all. If it's objectively sinful, I think the sin of it lies in other departments, for example, the producing of vile images which we should not cast our eyes on, or if the actor's spouse doesn't approve, or it simply violates the conscience, etc. But this goes the same with on screen violence.

My point is that all of it is fake, it's make-believe, it's visual story-telling: the murder, the sex, the cursing, the lies.

As an aside. I do agree and resonate with all of you on how repulsive modern entertain is in general, and if we were perfectly sanctified, we would be done with it altogether. I'm sure Hollywood violates many a Christian conscience all the time. But I'm looking for arguments that renders acting in such roles objectively sinful, and it's hard to find. We should not make perfection the enemy of what is permissible.

 

[kvanlaan]

Question 99. What is required in the third commandment?

Answer: That we, not only by cursing (a) or perjury, (b) but also by rash swearing, (c) must not profane or abuse the name of God; nor by silence or connivance be partakers of these horrible sins in others; (d) and, briefly, that we use the holy name of God no otherwise than with fear and reverence; (e) so that he may be rightly confessed (f) and worshipped by us, (g) and be glorified in all our words and works. (h)

How is there any vaguery in this? Are they using it in fear and reverence (whether they are an actor or a producer or need to say it as a narrator or sing it as part of a song, etc. ad nauseum)? If not, then no, it is wrong. Can we not find some other means of entertainment?

This is indeed objectively sinful, no? Or do I misconstrue what the confession is trying to say?

The confession goes on:

Question 100. Is then the profaning of God's name, by swearing and cursing, so heinous a sin, that his wrath is kindled against those who do not endeavour, as much as in them lies, to prevent and forbid such cursing and swearing?

Answer: It undoubtedly is, (a) for there is no sin greater or more provoking to God, than the profaning of his name; and therefore he has commanded this sin to be punished with death. (b)

So then the very act of inaction in stopping it is sin, can we possibly stretch it to mean that viewing it, listening to it or reading it as entertainment could be OK?

 

[steadfast7]

First, I think the intention of the confession is to define and guard against the violation committed in the real, everyday world, not the world of story-telling.

Second, there are contexts when the words, "god" and "lord" are not referring to our Triune God, and thus spoken without due respect, but this would not be considered sin. Words need to be located within a proper frame of reference seeking to accomplish the speech act of blasphemy in order to be a violation, in my opinion.

Third, if you were to remove or "stop" every instance of irreverent references to God, you would have to remove portions of Scripture eg. Pharoah's, "Who is the LORD that I should obey him?", or the pharisees, "By Beelzebub he casts out demons!", or Lucifer's, "I will ascend to heaven; above the stars of God!"

So long as it is OK to do a dramatic reading of these passages, I see it no differently from delivering lines from a script.

 

[kvanlaan]

But Dennis, I am not talking about references such as 'god' or 'lord'; if an actor bows before a king and says, 'yes, my lord', it is not a taking of the Lord's name in vain - it is a reference to that person's position. We'd also have to disembowel the Dutch language, since every time you say 'mister' (meneer) you are merely saying a contraction of 'mijn heer' (my lord). I am more concerned about the continual stream of 'Oh, my goodness'-type talk that we see literally everywhere. Furthermore, Scripture is God's word. We don't tinker with it. And those who took the Lord's name in vain in those cases you quote above received their reward for doing so.

First, I think the intention of the confession is to define and guard against the violation committed in the real, everyday world, not the world of story-telling.

That's just it; it is part of the real world, and the most distasteful part of it is that it is used as entertainment! The confessions are clear and uncompromising; they are not a suggestion, they are a summary of what scripture says on these topics.

 

[steadfast7]

Kevin, I'm with you on the disgust for "Oh, my goodness" talk. But there's my point right there! Did you just sin for writing those 3 letters, which everyone understands and we know as referring to God? I don't think you just sinned. But the arguments of this thread would conclude that you did. Why isn't it sin? Because you were quoting, you were reporting, you were re-enacting a cultural trend. You mimicked the blasphemous thing that people type by typing it yourself! But you did it to illustrate what is done. It did not proceed out of your own mind as a misuse of God's name for your own purposes.

Do you see how you established my very point?

 

[Steve Curtis]

I think that there is a very distinct line between reporting on words that come/came out of someone's mouth (e.g., reporters, social commentators) and putting the words in someone's mouth (e.g., a scriptwriter). If I tell you that "Bob" misused God's name, I am relating Bob's sinful conduct. If I (as a scriptwriter) tell Bob to misuse God's name, I am relating my own sinful conduct and, I believe, Bob would be indicting himself for sinful conduct if he did, in fact, carry out my wishes.
Here's the kicker: if what I am telling Bob to do is in connection with a reenactment of something that has already occurred, I think that falls under the first category (reportage/documentary, etc.) and both Bob and I would be involved only in relating the sinful conduct of others. Otherwise (if it is simply fiction/entertainment/etc.), it is sin.

 

[Jack K]

I am more concerned about the continual stream of 'Oh, my goodness'-type talk that we see literally everywhere.

I think we're all in agreement that such careless and pointless use of God's name is wrong, that it does not need to be in movie scripts, and that Christians in the movie business should oppose it. That's not really the issue.

But what if you have a story of a sinful character who, as part of his sinfulness, blasphemes God. In the course of the movie the character either gets his comeuppance or comes to repentance and is changed. Isn't this a good thing in a movie? Such movies may be rare, but wouldn't we like to see more movies with such a message? And if so, might it be okay for a Christian actor to play the role, acting out the blasphemy and all?

I'm not prepared to lay down a rule that a Christian may never play that role. I think he might be able to. I see his speech, in that case, as having a God-honoring purpose.

 

[steadfast7]

Steve, this is begging the question again. We haven't yet established that a misuse of God's name has occurred. A scriptwriter is not telling Bob to misuse God's name. A script writer is creating a fantasy world where one of his fictitious characters is misusing God's name. Bob has been cast to play a part and deliver lines (believably) to an audience who knows that the story is fantasy. The only one who has misused God's name is a fictitious character in a story. No real person has really misused God's name. I personally think that reports of actual events (news, documentaries) could be considered even more serious, because real people said real things in real time and space, and now the event is being re-enacted for those who weren't there to hear it the first time. Real life is always more shocking than fiction, which is why we are aghast at reports of rape and murder in our neighbourhoods. But if everything is occurring within a make-belief world, then who do we pit the blame on? Is Agatha Christie guilty of numerous accounts of murder?

---------- Post added at 01:41 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:35 AM ----------

I guess the question can be asked: does God's presence pervade even the literary and fantasy world? He is personally offended when fictitious characters sin?

 

[au5t1n]

But what if you have a story of a sinful character who, as part of his sinfulness, blasphemes God. In the course of the movie the character either gets his comeuppance or comes to repentance and is changed. Isn't this a good thing in a movie? Such movies may be rare, but wouldn't we like to see more movies with such a message? And if so, might it be okay for a Christian actor to play the role, acting out the blasphemy and all?

But do you think there are any sinful actions which should never be portrayed on camera, even if the character "gets his comeuppance or comes to repentance"? If there are any such actions, then we need to consider the possibility that blasphemy may fall into the same category, even if it means we have to give up some of the hard-hitting realism in the movie.

I'll give you an example. Dakota Fanning was in a movie not too long ago where she had to act out being raped (I think she was 12 at the time, and no, I didn't watch it, just to be clear). Obviously the action was presented as a horrible evil, and I think it's clear the movie would have been a lot less capable of driving the message home to its viewers without that scene, but wouldn't you agree the scene was inappropriate anyway?

 

[steadfast7]

But Austin, how's that scene different from a depiction of rape, murder, homosexual activity, and incest portrayed in scripture resulting in a mental image of the narrative? Perhaps not all people form images when reading narratives, but most do, because that's what stories are designed to do, and that's a big part of their appeal and why they're used.

 

[au5t1n]

But Austin, how's that scene different from a depiction of rape, murder, homosexual activity, and incest portrayed in scripture resulting in a mental image of the narrative? Perhaps not all people form images when reading narratives, but most do, because that's what stories are designed to do, and that's a big part of their appeal and why they're used.

If you can't see the difference between Scripture saying "Amnon raped Tamar" and a movie showing its audience a 12-year-old girl apparently being raped before their eyes, then I'm not sure there's anything I can do to help you understand what we're saying.

 

[steadfast7]

But Austin, how's that scene different from a depiction of rape, murder, homosexual activity, and incest portrayed in scripture resulting in a mental image of the narrative? Perhaps not all people form images when reading narratives, but most do, because that's what stories are designed to do, and that's a big part of their appeal and why they're used.

If you can't see the difference between Scripture saying "Amnon raped Tamar" and a movie showing its audience a 12-year-old girl apparently being raped before their eyes, then I'm not sure there's anything I can do to help you understand what we're saying.

Again, I see that you dwelling on sexual sins, and not descriptions of murder, theft, or idolatry in the Bible. This is quite arbitrary, don't you think? There are descriptions of sexual activity and language (like "he went into her") which are more graphic and thought-provoking than Amnon raped Tamar, to say the least!

Also, prior to the 'motion-picture', verbal descriptions and art were the main form of describing and depicting events. Scripture, being a form of literature, is not devoid of literary elements that portray highly detailed events, which are appealing to the imagination and the mind (thought-conjuring), and which are interesting to the listener (entertaining). The authors could have spared us the details because they are inappropriate, but didn't.

 

[Steve Curtis]

Perhaps, Dennis, you can define the categories more clearly for me. In the hypothetical situation wherein you are not sure if Bob is actually misusing God's name, what is the context? Is the intent to teach/encourage godly principles and/or model godly behavior (such as Jack's ultimately repentant character)? Further, is that the motive of all concerned (writer, actor)? If so, I can see how it could have merit (though, still, I would have to be convinced on a case by case basis that the hypothetical dialogue/action is necessary to make that point).
If, on the other hand, the work is either a) intended merely for entertainment or, as is often the case, specifically for its blatant irreverence and shock effect (though few are shocked anymore), or b) the writer's intent is noble but the actor doesn't share the conviction and is only looking for pay/fame, etc., then I believe that God's name is, in fact, being misused. In the end, to be honest, it seems to me that we are trying to ascertain whether or not there are "loopholes" in the Law of God.

 

[au5t1n]

Again, I see that you dwelling on sexual sins, and not descriptions of murder, theft, or idolatry in the Bible. This is quite arbitrary, don't you think?

Not at all, I think it's common sense. Ask your average American parent (doesn't even have to be a believer) the following two questions:

1. Would you let your 6-year-old child see a movie scene where someone steals something?
2. Would you let your 6-year-old child see a movie scene where someone is sexually assaulted or murdered right on camera gruesomely?

You'll get a lot of "yes"s to the first question and a lot of "no"s to the second.

 

[steadfast7]

I don't think a clear intention on the part of an artist is necessary in order for godly principles to be gleaned and taught. Leonardo does not need an intention for painting Mona Lisa in order for the work to be a celebrated masterpiece. Likewise, even really lousy modern art can have redeemable elements that point to the glory of God. Even the most heinous sins performed by the worst people can be redeemed by God and used to point us to the truth. This is not to excuse vile and worthless things in art or otherwise, of course, just that there is no place on earth where God doesn't claim as "mine!"

In the end, God is offended when real people perform real sins. But this is not the same as a depiction or description of sin. These are not sins, they are illustrations.

Austin, we were talking about the appropriateness of depicting particular sins and you were focussing on the inappropriateness of depicting rape. I am merely asking why you chose to focus on sexual sins, when it ought to be inappropriate to depict all sins. Perhaps it's true that rape is qualitatively more heinous than murder in God's mind. It'd be interesting to argue for that. My main point is that in these depictions, no one is actually getting raped, no one is actually being murdered.

Are there sins involved when indulging in entertainment? Sure! Lusting during sex scenes, watching a gruesome murder scene and wishing that on your enemy, becoming addicted to media, learning to curse and swear, media piracy and much more.

I'm trying to find the sin that has occurred and who dunnit.

Only if Bob = his character, can it be argued that Bob has sinned. Only Bob knows how much of himself is in the character, so I leave it to him to operate according to his conscience. Some actors would deny the role because they cannot dissociate themselves from their characters, and some audiences can't do it either. This is probably something Bob needs to think about when it comes to whether he should take the role: will his church community be drawn into sin and stumble if they watch him in that role?

After considering all these things, it's no surprise that very few committed Christians are able to make it in Hollywood. There is potential for sin at every turn, but objectively speaking in terms of the relationship between character and actor, I don't think that a character's sin should be imputed on the one depicting it.

 

[he beholds]

There is potential for sin at every turn, but objectively speaking in terms of the relationship between character and actor, I don't think that a character's sin should be imputed on the one depicting it.

I think the answer to this is if the actor has to sin himself in order to depict the character's sin, then it is sin. It isn't imputed; he is actually sinning. One could pretend to steal, that is not stealing. But if a TV show director said, "to shoot this scene, you really need to steal a tank of gas," then he is sinning, b/c he's really stealing a tank of gas. If the director says, "to shoot this scene, you need to take the Lord's name in vain," then he is taking the Lord's name in vain. If he says, "you need to rape this girl..." or "have actual intercourse with this girl..." then he is sinning. I cannot see how the Lord's name can only be pretended to be taken in vain. I've already said that, I know, but I'm hung up on it. I can't see how swearing by Christ's name FOR PRETEND would not be an act done in vain. Did he mean it? Was it respectful and in fear? No?Then it was in vain, right?

 

[Ne Oublie]

In all of this, where is the understanding that we are to be renewing our minds, that we are to be redeeming the time, that we are to be avoiding all forms and appearances of evil? Where in all of this is the power of persuasion that is in the "arts"? The incredible power that makes us all completely enamored or desensitized by the "actual" sin that is being portrayed, pretended, acted. Where is the discernment to understand what is right, we are to seek, continually what is right, not just sometimes, but all times? Where is the hatred of sin so much that it would, even being portrayed by an actor, give us even more of an abhoration of it than to glorify it.

The bible portrays numerous and awful sins that we may know how awful and wrong that we all are and it is quick to rebuke and to show that they are wrong and that God is Holy and Right. "Art" and movies are not like this. They portray it as something to either glorify or show as beauty, they do not even attempt to show any wrong with them or not.

The bottom line is, how much do you hate sin? So much that you can watch or listen to something that show know reverence for God, no Fear, no understanding of the Truth and then turn around and say that was a good movie or that's a good song?

A man that creates while revering his Maker, the great and awesome God of Heaven, would never have to repeat, construct, replay, act, paint, or build anything that would go against His Word or Will.

Job understood to make a covenant with his eyes, to keep His eyes pure and right. Just saying....

 

[steadfast7]

I cannot see how the Lord's name can only be pretended to be taken in vain.

1 Cor 12:3, "Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking in the Spirit of God ever says “Jesus is accursed!” and no one can say “Jesus is Lord” except in the Holy Spirit."

Gasp! How can Paul write those words with a clear conscience?! He placed himself in the "ROLE" of a blasphemer and uttered what he would have said!

Far be it from us to say that the Apostle has sinned under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Again, this superficial logic assumes that the existence of the words themselves, whether written or spoken, are sin. It has been sufficiently demonstrated that that is not always the case; the words can be uttered in a non sinful way. It looks like we'll have to just have to disagree on this, cause we're going in circles here.

You guys are right about the sin that abounds in the movie industry, and I have always agreed (although it's not the point of thread). But sin abounds in every industry where there are sinful people. We live in a totally depraved world, what did you expect? In what work environment is there no temptation at all to sin? Should Christians not be soldiers, or lawyers, or artists? In my opinion, it's too bad that Christians run away from it and retreat into the desert as they have always done in order to get away from the defilement of the world, rather than engaging the culture and redeeming it.

 

[Jack K]

But what if you have a story of a sinful character who, as part of his sinfulness, blasphemes God. In the course of the movie the character either gets his comeuppance or comes to repentance and is changed. Isn't this a good thing in a movie? Such movies may be rare, but wouldn't we like to see more movies with such a message? And if so, might it be okay for a Christian actor to play the role, acting out the blasphemy and all?

But do you think there are any sinful actions which should never be portrayed on camera, even if the character "gets his comeuppance or comes to repentance"? If there are any such actions, then we need to consider the possibility that blasphemy may fall into the same category, even if it means we have to give up some of the hard-hitting realism in the movie.

I'll give you an example. Dakota Fanning was in a movie not too long ago where she had to act out being raped (I think she was 12 at the time, and no, I didn't watch it, just to be clear). Obviously the action was presented as a horrible evil, and I think it's clear the movie would have been a lot less capable of driving the message home to its viewers without that scene, but wouldn't you agree the scene was inappropriate anyway?

I agree there are some sins we simply don't want to see portrayed. And there are others we'd surely want to limit, either limiting to a certain audience or portraying them only under rare circumstances where the effectiveness of the film's message calls for it. In no way am I advocating an "anything goes" position. Filmmakers should use wisdom and discretion in portraying any sin.

But just as I wouldn't give them a blanket license to portray sin, I don't wish to give them blanket prohibitions either. I would hope Christian filmmakers are thoughtful and very slow to depict any sin in a careless manner. But I'm also pointing out that to tell a meaningful story with character growth you do have to have to portray sin. And I'm open to the possibility that some wise, Christian filmmakers could do it appropriately.