Putting more things in boxes

I've been thinking of adding something new to the film reviews- genre! However, in accordance with everything else on this blog- I'm not talking about conventional genres.

I've been thinking about it, because I'm fascinated by the way so many films make it impossible to categorize into a single genre. Try "Donnie Darko" part drama, part thriller, part teen flick, part sci-fi, part horror. What is it? I have no idea. Most films out there have a base genre with additional elements (beef broth with a few added ingredients- but still mainly beef broth).


new: Character Study examples are: Arrested Development, Napoleon Dynamite, Lady in the Water(sort of). These get funnier the more you watch them. Take a bunch of characters, the more odd the better, chisel their characters out, throw them together and see what happens. Usually comedy, not always.

I had a longer list of new genres, but I can't remember- they will come eventually I'm sure. Parody, Epic, fantasy, Sci-fi, EyeCandy, Romance, SuperHero, Comedic, Action, MindTwister, Religious, and Commentary. Everything ranges from light to dark and serious to not serious. There are shallow to deep too- but that's covered in the rest of the rating. So much more complicated than back in the day- when there was only dramas, comedies, and tragedies.

Calling for entries

A few months ago I was trying to get some feedback about the rating system thats going on here, and the next place for me to look was to see how robust the rating system is, and I posted about people all rating the same movie and emailing me the rating, to see how they match- all using the same rubric provided here in this blog.

This is what I'd like to do: Harry Potter comes out next week. Anyone that wants to, please watch the movie, look over the rubric of ratings here on my site (here and here), rate the movie, and then email me what you came up with. Email me at fromthejerman@gmail.com. I'm going to be seeing it Monday night, and I will not post this film review until all entries are in.

I really can't tell you all how useful this is going to be, and besides actually watching the movie, this should take you no more than 15-30 minutes. So- Please! - spare a little time and shoot me that email.

2 hours of your time?

In one of my teaching classes we are learning about assessment and creating rubrics. I asked my professor for some help in perfecting the rubric that I use to rate movies for this site. He understood everything with only looking at it for a minute or two and saw how it could be used, this is a good sign. We talked about the rubric for a few minutes, I explained how I want it less dependent on me, more mathematical, and less subjective. Each film is getting graded a few times: good teachings, bad teachings, content, and age level.

The way I rate movies is by writing down a list of all the good and bad things it teaches, or make a list of cool people and what they do and disliked characters and what they do. Then I look at that list the same time as the rubric and then give it the rating.

My professor then told me that I need to have some other people use my rubric to see how robust it is. If many people watch a movie and give the same rating then the rubric is a good one, if not, then I have some things to change or clarify.

I need some volunteers. I need a few people that can use my system and rate the same movie and then we all compare notes. Come find me or email me and we'll choose a film and a time once we get enough people.

On a side note: I'm also collecting movie quotes, If you'd like to help then write down the good quotes from the next movie you watch (exact wording is sorta important) and email them to me, this is going to be a big post (a reader participation post), which is going to get updated a whole stinking lot.

MPAJ v1.2

I know its Christmas eve, but inspiration strikes as it will and I have to blog this immediately. I finally have two answers I've been wanting plus a third answer I didn't know I wanted.
New to the rating system:The age to be for watching something. Technically, you can watch a movie whenever you want, however understanding the movie is a little bit different. This will be listed in the rating paragraph from now on.

New to the rating system:A rating for content, I've decided to go with the defcon system. I don't know how many defcon levels there are in the military (5??) but I'm tentatively going with 6 levels right now. This will show how much questionable content there is in a film (with no regard to the morals). Main areas are sexuality (immodesty, innuendos, jokes, general sexuality), language, violence (slapstick, humanized violence), and gore (throwing up, bloody knees, general gross stuff you don't want to see). One of these things can either be referenced to happening, shown or heard happening, or emphasized (good close up) as its happening. Depending on how much there is of everything the defcon will rise and I'll give a little blurb about why. Kinda like the current MPAA. In the military, Defcon5 is peace, and Defcon1 is full-out war, which we have never experienced. Defcon stands for Defense Condition which still applies to watching movies, but this is not the military, this is the MPAJ, so I can pretty much do whatever I want.

• Defcon1- very light (from Dora the Explorer to Mary Poppins)
• Defcon2- light (Lion King to Secondhand Lions)
• Defcon3- Moderate (Unbreakable)
  
• Defcon4- Heavy (Sixth Sense to Lord of the Rings)
• Defcon5- Disturbing (Fight Club)
  
• Defcon6- Very Disturbing
  

I don't really make it a point to watch 5s and 6s, so I don't have many examples of them. Here is an example for ya'll: Lion King gets Defcon2 for scary hyenas, a bad guy that kills (and is shown), very strong emotions of hate shown. Really- this is the type of thing that calls for committee action which I will try for, but I'll try my best when I have to do it alone.


Lastly it came to my attention recently that the current output of the film industry has turned a lot of people off from watching movies at all. A friend will speak highly of it so you'll see it and you finish watching it disgusted. I want to let all of you know that there is so much good film and good media out there that your entire life is not long enough to watch it all. There is a lot of good stuff that will inevitably make better people out of you. So, I'm considering making an Allen's list, consisting of gems from out of all the dross stuff the industry puts out. Allen's kids' list may also be created.

If any of you have input to the list influencing defcons (things for me to consider while selecting the rating) please let me know! Any other suggestions or input will also be greatly appreciated.

film, theater and religion

I've been working diligently creating a make-believe curriculum for a class. I've been making it as good as I can, so that some day it can be adapted to create a class I can teach in High School. This class is kind of my dream class, if I had my way, this is the class I would teach most of, it deals with very important things that apply to real life just as easily as to film.

During my research, I came across this blog and post. It is really fantastic. It talks about Mormon theater, a bit of history. Further down it has some great quotes by Church leaders. A little bit further down and you get the "artists dilemma" as he calls it and uses Joseph Smith as an example- really great stuff. I've been thinking about this scaffolding that is the thematic and moral core of a film around which everything is created and tailored. I suppose that also must be true in our lives- the themes, morals, virtues we get to pick. We choose which morals and virtues are most important and we build our lives around that core. When choosing a major many people choose to build around money- which makes this essay I've linked to very interesting to me, especially the Joseph Smith part. Shouldn't the 'artist's dilemma' be everyones' dilemma?

I encourage you to read the essay.

Jerman Rating System Reviewed

ok, so I need to a lot of practice with this rating system, which is why I've practiced with just about every movie I've seen in the last month. I have a few concerns.

First- and this is important. This rating system rates only the morality of the film. It doesn't, it can't have anything to do with how "good" or "likable" the movie is. There are three different criteria people use when choosing a movie to watch

• 1)How professional is the Movie? Lord of the Rings near the top of the chain, old Japanese Godzilla movie would be unprofessional.
• 2)How moral is the movie is.
• 3)How well the movie clicks or clashes with you personally.

Every movie in the world is categorized by you in this way. Usually your favorite movies pass all three questions. Then your next favorites fail one question, and so on. The bad movies that you hate fail all three.

One quick example: I love the movie Good Will Hunting. Yes it teaches some very good things, its also very dirty and unabashed about it. I still love it though. Artificial Intelligence - very professionally done, good film making, most people hate it though- out of personal preference (I'm undecided).

Onto my Second concern. How am I supposed to apply the JMPA rating to my life? Is there supposed to be a line to draw? There probably should be...The Prophet told us not to watch immoral movies...I'm finding the rating system less useful than I had hoped. The Transporter - I haven't seen it in a while, but it'd probably be a +1 and -3. It still like the movie. Is that bad of me? I know what the 13^th Article of Faith says, I know watching immoral movies is bad and dangerous. But there has to be a way to apply the rating to my movie selections, just as there is a way to rate the movie itself. Perhaps its a personal thing. Everyone has to decide and come up with it on their own. I'm still bouncing around a few ideas. There has to be a good method.

Currently in Mormon-dom the R rating is like the kiss of death- the reason Saints and Soldiers was edited down, it was primarily for Mormon audiences, it wouldn't do well with the "evil R" rating. If I dictated and drew the line (as I am about to do)- I would be re-inventing the kiss of death. The Rater would still have the power to include or exclude movies that are bordering on the 'kiss of death' border out of personal preference- which is not the way its supposed to happen.

So far this is my watchable list: +5 or +4(any amount of steps back), +3(must be -3 or less), +2 or +1 (-2 or less).

I'm looking for feedback as well, which I haven't received a whole lot of. Please tell me your thoughts- whatever they are- I want to know them. As long as they aren't "You're the best I love you" or "you're the worse , I hate you." I'm looking for some real advice or feedback. The entire JMPA has only happened because I've surveyed hundreds of people, and is constantly being refined as more people are surveyed.

Jerman's Rating Explained

The MPAA is broken, the rating system most of America uses. It doesn’t work how we want it to work. The reason we use it, and the purpose in creating it are two different things. The MPAA isn’t a scale of morality, which is what we need- the answer? We make our own.

I’ve been working of this for a long time. Is almost impossibly hard. I’ve recently dubbed this the JMPA or MPAJ, I haven’t decided which is better (‘J’ for Jerman…I know, How vain of me…

Lets start. Does each film start bad (F, 0%) and earns righteous points (raising the grade)? Does it start good (A+) and accumulates wicked points? Does it start neutral, a C (75%) on the grade scale, or a 50%(F) on the point scale? Is a number system good (1 dimensional)? Is 2 dimensions better, or 7? What kind of rubric do you use, or is using a rubric even possible? After bouncing around a few ideas, I’ve decided to use this system. Each film starts at zero, and earns points in both directions (moral, and immoral) at the same time The two vectors don’t cancel each other out. The highest and lowest is a 5, something you will rarely or never see. It’d probably be bell-curve-ish. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a +5 film. +4 would be Chronicles of Narnia. Lord of the Rings- possibly, M. Night Shyamalan- probably.

It gets more difficult when looking at the rubric you are forced to use, intentionally or otherwise. You have to use some sort of criteria to say how many steps forward, and backward. Example: Girl wears immodest skirt (please forgive me for using such a lame example, its just for illustration). However the filmmakers are using the Girl to explain how immodesty is bad. Do I still give points in both directions? Don’t worry about content because only morals matter? I don’t have an answer yet. For right now- content does have a place, maybe small, but it does have influence on the whole rating.

We love generalities so much, so here is a general rule. If it is glorified, it is encouraged (fighting and kung-fu in Matrix), if it is demonized it is discouraged (Killing people- just about every movie). If a liked character does something, that action is encouraged (James Bond drinks Martinis , drives nice cars, and has sex), if a disliked character does something it is discouraged (cutting down trees is bad, because Saruman did it).

At this point in time, I and I alone, have the power of discretion to say what things are good and what is bad. I’m working on a way to make it more objective and less based on me, but this is the way it is now, until it gets fixed. Still- its better than the MPAA, which really is broken. To everyone who has read through this (which looking at the numbers of people visiting this blog, is a heck of a lot of people) I would encourage you to decide on making your own rating system. Your own XMPA replacing X with your nickname. Tailor it how you want it, set it up as perfect as you can.

• +5 Teaches many many things, that are essential, rarely taught, and would elevate mankind to a higher plane. Don’t expect to ever see any of these films.
• +4 Teaches variety of and quality morals. Film this moral is rare.
• +3 Not as wide a variety, or less stressed than 4, yet retains a strong message which is generally outstanding. High class morals
• +2 Bulk of movies. Think low class Disney films.
• +1 Token morals, almost an afterthought
• +0 Only exists on paper, not in real film. Well…Maybe a Burger King training video would have nonexistent morality.

AND (not or)

• -0 Same as above
• -1 Things aren’t quite right, there is token immorality thrown in, almost as an after thought.
• -2 Glorify that which is bad, Demonize good things, This is a lot more common. Watch out, be sure to notice when this is happening.
• -3 Sex, Violence, Drugs, Language, all glorified. These movies defiantly are being made, they are more rare than 1 or 2, not usually popular by the common people, but you can find them without much trouble.
• -4 Super bad things taught, If the whole world followed these things, we’d be living in a very evil world. If a –4 movie has been made, it’d be really rare.
• -5 As bad as possible, If a +5 is teaching about Jesus, and becoming better, this would be the opposite, I highly doubt a –5 movie has ever been created.

it Was Never Sent

A short while ago there was some talk in a newspaper about film morality, I felt a strong twang to write a letter to the editor, I never did. I'm not sure if it was good or bad, but I'm going to publish it now, I reworked it and it has become quite long, but Martin Luther Kings talks were long too, I just hope I write important things that have relevance. So here you go:

The last few weeks I’ve been reading about how films are good and bad morally. People wrote in that the MPAA does this or that, or perhaps the content does it, or perhaps the message does: the lesson is what’s important. There was one guy who wrote a good letter about how the content and message are both equally important, you can’t single out the content only- which is what many LDS people like to focus on.

We believe that the Book of Mormon is a perfect book, maybe the most perfect book on the world, however, at the same time its about murder, rape, adultery, secret combinations, bloody wars, betrayals, hate, pride, greed, etc. We’re told to read this book everyday, to study it. Now it also contains some positive content, but it has huge portions of it that are predominately negative. Try to focus on Alma 47, or similar chapters, maybe Moroni 9 for a few days in a row, haven’t studies those chapters real in depth? I guess not. The Book of Mormon has a lot of good content (remember we aren’t talking about lessons and messages, those come later), but it doesn’t have perfectly white spotless content, its really very bloody. What I’ve just wrote is irrelevant, I know. The Book of Mormon is valuable to us because of its message.

Content and Message aren’t two brothers that influence you together. Content supports the message- always- and then the message influences you, or at least that’s how it should be.
In the Book of Mormon there are heroes and there are villains and there is no gray. In real life or better yet, in film, the protagonist can mess up, make a mistake, maybe steal something or tell a lie- this creates ‘bad’ content, but if that content is used to teach a good value (such as his life gets messed up as a consequence, and the message is that stealing is bad) then the ‘bad’ content is irrelevant, it was as a means to teach. In the Book of Mormon, Nephi and Alma and Moroni are already perfect, they don’t mess up, they aren’t human, the only bad example we get is from the bad guys themselves.

In film the good guy usually does what’s good. Which is why it is so frustrating when the hero saves the day, is a wonderful role model, and then sleeps with the female lead (not his wife). This not only is this bad content, but a much worse message. Being able to recognize those bad messages when they do come up is what’s important.

Lets start now on the MPAA. First, the MPAA rates content first, then maturity age limits, and also looks at themes, though how much is questionable. If the content is bad, it automatically falls in the rating chart, no matter what themes that content is being used to teach, it is very possible the Book of Mormon if rated would receive an R rating, or more mature due to its violence and graphic descriptions.

The second way the MPAA rates is maturity levels. “Is a xx year old mature enough to handle what he sees and what he hears?” The first Matrix that came out was originally PG-13, until the directors thought it need to go to a mature-er audience and resubmitted the film. There is an age when children don’t understand the concept of death, and how a dead person doesn’t “wake up.” There is also an age that doesn’t understand complex emotions and motives behind many things that happen in modern cinema.

There is an odd trend among many directors and in Hollywood to make really good films with good messages R, some of the best films ever (message wise) may be R rated, but PG-13 films are sometimes notorious for the good-guy sleeping around and doing other equally bad things, the content stays clean (nothing is shown), but the message is just as bad as if you were to see him committing the wrong. In a significant way PG-13’s are worse than R’s, if you believe that message is more powerful on the human mind than content is (which it is).

These are the beginnings of ideas from which come: disregarding the MPAA entirely, or using a different moral rating system, or why the Church does not use the MPAA as a standard and references it in manuals, and why many people choose to watch whatever rating system guilt-free.

There might be a higher law: instead of avoiding R films and watching everything else and thinking you’re ‘good’- seeking good film and avoiding bad film, which really is what the prophets have told us all along, its just taken us a while to realize the MPAA is not a judge of how morally good/bad a movie is.

If you learn nothing else: Message is everything, and content isn’t.

Link to: MPAA website