first_imgWell-known Donegal priest Fr John Joe Duffy has urged people to vote ‘No’ in Friday’s referendum on Marriage Equality.Fr John Joe DuffyIn a hard-hitting Homily given in the Church of Mary Immaculate, Stranorlar, Fr Duffy says the public should not rush in like fools to follow the example of politicians.In the lengthy homily, Fr Duffy urges people across Donegal not to be ‘A La Carte’ with their religion.This is his homily in full.Donegal Daily continues to carry statements from both the Yes and No campaigns.Marriage is from God and made a sacrament by Jesus Christ.It is a covenant promise by which a man and woman establish betweenthemselves a partnership and it is ordered by nature to the good andfor the will of man and woman, for the procreation and education ofchildren. God alone is the author of marriage. The well being of theindividual person and of both the human and Christian society isclosely bound up with the healthy state of family life and marriage.The first miracle performed by Jesus Christ was at Cana in Galileewhen he came to the aid and assistance of a couple at their weddingfeast when they experienced a difficulty. Marriage unites a couple in faithful and mutual love. it is a caringand sharing for one another in a lifetime commitment. It bestows upona couple the greatest gift of all – the giving of new life. Marriageis the vehicle to respond to the call God, to that greatest gift, thewonderful gift the of love. We are called to share the love of Jesus Christto the world, the union of man and woman in marriage is a mirror imageof the love of Christ for humanity. It calls upon the couple to be asign of the love ofChrist in this our earthly journey. Our faith is based on theseprinciples.Marriage is a noble high calling, recognised as central to ourChristian faith, it blesses married couples with the gift children andit has been seen as such by the writers of our own constitutionwritten in 1937 and more laterally by the people of Croatia, Slovenia,and Slovakia who voted in large majorities against redefiningmarriage. Only 17 out of 198 countries have redefined marriage and noEuropean country has ever introduced same sex marriage by aReferendum.This Friday the 22nd through this referendum we are been presentedwith a political redefinition of Marriage – that is what we are votingon “a political solution to a refined meaning and understanding ofmarriage”. This impacts on everything I as a Priest, as a Christian,as an individual believes in and on everything that I believe and holdto be right and true. Marriage as we know it, as we believe in it isthe very corner stone, the key stone of humanity and of society. It isbased first of all on Natural Law.We are been told through the media and by our political leaders thatthis is an equality issue, an equality question, that is a veryemotional line we must all agree. But, the truth is – this referendumis not an equality issue, nothing could be further from the truth. Wemust realise that equality does not mean the same and not all thingsare possible to make equal. There are many things with the bestintention and will in the world that we cannot make equal, that wecannot make the same, neither before God, humanity or Natural Law. So can I as a servant of God, as a Priest, as an individual do so? CanI espouse same sex marriage?Firstly, it dismantles the foundation stone of the family as ordainedby God and natural law, the family unit and the constitutional rightsof the family and marriage. Secondly, this 34th amendment of theconstitution (Marriage Equality) Bill, 2015, if successful willpolitically redefine Marriage without any consideration for children,for their rights, for mothers and fathers and for our Christian andother faith beliefs.Thirdly, it seriously erodes and destroys our belief that Marriage isordained and given to us by God and ordered by Natural Law. And whatthe Marriage Referendum gives to same sex couples, it takes in a fargreater amount from conventional married couples. In the politicalredefinition of Marriage, they disadvantage and indeed destroy therights of conventional couples. Since 1937, Ireland uniquely gaveconstitutional rights to the family, to marriage, now as part of thisconstitutional amendment, the family and marriage will be redefined,which can open the floodgates to further refinement in future years.While we are asked to vote in this same sex referendum, we may forevercompromise the rights of the family, the rights of a child to have amother and father. We are eroding the very essence and fabric of thefamily and of Irish society.Adoption and surrogacy rights for same sex couples will be equal tothat of conventional parents, a mother and a father. We are beenemotionally and blindly lead into this, we are been hoodwinked. Bygiving constitutional rights to same sex couples in our constitutionthen we convey the exact same rights to adoption, surrogacy rightswhich can later be defined by the Dáil without reference to the Irishpeople because of the provision that will be inserted into theconstitution by way of this referendum.This we cannot support. I cannot support the hidden consequences ofthe Referendum which we will not be able to reverse if it is passed.The consequences are too grave for those who are vulnerable. I havestudied 3 places that introduced same sex marriage. In Canada, Christian organizations have been fined for refusing toallow use of their facilities for same sex post marriage celebrations.Priests and clergy cannot make public arguments about human sexualityas per our Christian faith. People have been brought before humanrights commissions and in some cases before human rights tribunals forspeaking up for Christian marriage. Teachers cannot speak publicly infavour of marriage between a woman and man. Same sex marriage must bedepicted positively in all classrooms in Canada and in Boston, USA.Boston schools by law have to hold Gay appreciation days in theirschools and their libraries have to have books promoting same sexrealities and books also must contain same sex relationshipbiologically explicit material. This is something I would not like mynieces or nephews to be subjected too. But parents will have no choiceas was clearly demonstrated in Boston when David Parkers took a caseseeking that his children would not be taught about same relationshipsand same sex marriage. The judgment was that “the school actually hada duty to normalize homosexual relationships to children”.In Scotland John Mason, Glasgow of the SNP said he “was fearful thatanyone opposed to same sex marriage would be victimised if the billwent through without more robust protections”. I am much more fearfulin our situation where same sex marriage will be constitutionallyguaranteed. No business, no parish hall, no church, no school, noteacher will have “an opt out” conscience protection clause. Buildings andservices will have to be made available on request to same sex couplesand their celebrations as this will be enshrined in the constitution.It will compel everyone, Parents, children, clergy, teachers, businessand service providers, voluntary and parish organisations, regardlessof our beliefs, our consciences to redefine our understanding andvision of the family and Marriage. If passed there is no opt outconscience provision, and there will be not opt out conscienceprovision, as we have been toldEquality does not mean the same. The civil Partnership Bill gives samesex partnerships, civil guarantees ,protects property rights, kinship,pensions and social welfare, just like how married couples arepresently protected under civil law. Therefore in essence the equalityagenda is fair, balanced and constitutionally protected at present. So why a Referendum? What are we voting on? That lack of freedom todebate this question has been frightening- never have so many peoplebeen afraid to make clear their voting intentions. That’s wrongeveryone has the right to express their views. It is only by debatingwill we be certain of the facts before we decide how to vote.The Taoiseach was asked 3 weeks ago to point out 2 advantages thatsame sex marriage would give over civil partnership to same sexcouples; he was unable to do so. He was unable to give even onereason. It is difficult to enter into a debate that is based onemotions and face the wrath that goes with that. But as one Politiciansaid one time, “moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery inbattle or great intelligence. Yet it is essential, it is a vitalquality…” it is a vital quality for those who desire for the truth,true freedom and freedom of speech.I ask you before you mark an X on your ballot paper—Why the Referendum?What am I really doing here by following Politicians on a matter ofconscience? On a matter of conscience that will have far reachingconsequences for each of us and for Society?Politicians and conscience- I worry. Politicians and blanketguarantees that all will be well- I worry even more. I supportequality but not when it is impossible to make happen. I support thosein civil partnership. I support people who are gay. We all know peoplewho are gay and people who are in same sex partnerships. Amongst mybest friends are some of them. They are the most genuine and caringpeople in the world. The Church supports and loves all people. PopeFrancis is very clearly showing this and we are all open to findingways forward, but ways that are genuine. This Referendum is notequality lead. It is an attempt to redefine Marriage and the family,an attempt to recreate the very essence of creation- the cornerstones,the key stones of the Christian union of Man and Woman. It does notadd to family rights, it does the opposite in that it erodes familyrights.It is a wise man and woman, all of us indeed, that stands up and askswhy? to think Why?, when every political party and almost everypolitician is advocating a Yes vote. There has been no proper debate,no probing of this legislation through the Houses of the Oireachtas – thislegislation was not subject to committee stage debate in the Dáil, nochallenging, no amendments taken, no questioning of it in an informedmanner. This has to be very worrying.We need to be cautious what we write into our constitution as we haveseen in the early 1980’s with Abortion legislation- because once weinsert anything into our constitution as a right- the later andsubsequent interpretation of that is a mater for the courts only.Let us think first, think long and hard and draw from our own beliefs,understanding and life’s experience. What kind of society are wecreating? What kind of country do we want for our Children? We cannotredefine that which is a gift from God, defined by Jesus and orderedand supported by Natural Law.I will vote No. I ask you to consider all the facts carefully before you vote.We cannot be a La Carte about our Faith or our beliefs.Where Politicians rush in, dare we be fools to follow.DONEGAL PRIEST URGES PUBLIC NOT TO FOLLOW POLITICIANS INTO REFERENDUM LIKE ‘FOOLS’ was last modified: May 18th, 2015 by StephenShare this:Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window)Tags:donegalFr John Joe Duffymarriage referendumStranorlarlast_img read more

PG vs. R Ratings: What’s the Difference for Summer Action Films?

first_imgA film’s rating ensures a certain kind of audience. Here, we discuss the logic and thought process behind making a summer action film.Every filmmaker working on a summer action film faces a decision: to make an R-rated film with strong adult appeal, or to create something more accessible for larger audiences. So how do you make this determination?Earlier this year, Rossatron released a great video essay about the importance of blood in film. The video essay explores how a lack of blood in violent action scenes also creates a lack of consequence for those violent actions.I can’t disagree with that critique. When we see our hero plow through a warehouse shooting the bad guys and they instantly fall bloodless to the floor, it does somewhat diminish the seriousness of the action. On the topic, James Mangold, director of Logan and 3:10 to Yuma, said the following:I have a lot of misgivings about violence and PG ratings. A PG film might show hundreds of people dying, falling off buildings, getting mowed down by rapid-fire guns, but you don’t feel the deaths because the ratings system dictates the amount of agony being played by the actor. In a weird way, that makes violence more palatable because when we excise the upsetting bits, we de-sensitize ourselves to death to the point where it’s almost like shooting ducks at a carnival.Notably, despite the glaring lack of gore from slices, stabs, and gunshots, many summer action films that play it safe are either top box office contenders or happily ensconced in the museum of classics. Whenever we hear an announcement for a popular hard-edged character coming to the big screen, there are always anxious moviegoers pleading for the film to be R-rated and show the violence in all its glory. But are audiences longing for an adult take on a popular character (see Logan), or are they just bloodthirsty? First, let’s look at the ratings system.R-RatedTypically, if a film shows violence that’s both realistic and extreme, the film will garner an R-rating — or in the UK, a 15 rating (although these evaluations can become convoluted — we touch upon this below). An R-rated film requires someone under the age of seventeen to be accompanied by an adult, and a BBFC 15 rating will only permit those who are fifteen and above to watch the film. It doesn’t matter if you have an adult accompanying you or not. But what does realistic and extreme mean? Well, let’s look at two instances with the character Wolverine from films X-men 2 (PG-13) and Logan (R).In the following sequence from the PG-13 X-men 2, enemy combatants invade the X-mansion, and in his savage-but-protective nature, Wolverine chops down any foe in his wake to protect the children.Despite having razor-sharp claws that can cut through any material, the soldiers who regrettably find themselves in Wolverine’s path visually receive nothing more than torn clothing, despite the slicing and stabbing. Conversely, in a scene that almost mimics the events from the 2003 film, Wolverine again goes berserk against a group of enemy combatants to protect young children.The difference, however, is that if Wolverine slices an enemy solider’s neck, we see the blood splatter from the initial cut, flesh flung in the direction of the attack, and a gush of blood running from the soldier’s wound. Typically, this is an example of violence that is both realistic and extreme.Of course, bloody gore isn’t the only factor involved in a movie’s rating. There’s also sex, nudity, language, drug use — each category has an extremity limit that will push the rating into the next class. Regarding violence, the exact level of extreme is somewhat blurred, and both the MPAA and BBFC have been criticized — for decades — by filmmakers and audiences alike. For example, in the clip beneath from beloved summer action film Black Panther (PG 13), the character Killmonger (the antagonist), shoots and wounds another character named Ulysses Klaue. Not following the norms of PG-13; however, we see the two bullets penetrate Klaue, along with bloody entry wounds. More frequently, we’d see the character being shot from an angle, where the bullet impact is hidden (see this clip from Marvel’s Captain America: The Winter Soldier), the effect is visible, but we only see damage to the clothing and not the flesh, or the character gets shot off frame, and then we see a small amount of blood on the character’s shirt.Of course, we cannot disregard the economic factor. Both The Dark Knight and X-men 2 are inherently violent, but a large portion of the core demographic for summer action films are teenagers and children. And without those adolescent seats, studios lose a ton of box office cash and merchandising. Not to mention that R-rated films miss out on advertisements on teen-friendly spots — teen TV channels, Happy Meals, gaming websites, and so forth.The Demand for Blood or Adult Tone?Over the last few years, we’ve unquestionably seen a demand for more R-rated action films. Not necessarily for action films such as Die Hard, but for comic book films like Logan and Deadpool — along with future films based on more street-level characters. With the recent news that Marvel Studios will be bringing Blade into the fold, the internet was quick to rally behind the mantra that Blade, like the first iteration, needs to be bloody and R-rated. But are audiences longing for senseless bloody action in their summer action films, or do they merely want to see the characters they’ve grown up with now presented in a more adult-like tone?While there is an argument for visceral violence in these films (hey, I’m for it too), do we really need squirts of blood from every orc that Aragorn cuts down, in the same way that we saw from those slain by Jon Snow‘s sword? The thing is, unless it’s a blood-soaked horror film where the gore is the selling point, the nature of onscreen violence is usually a by-product of the tone of the film. What do I mean by that? Well, again, James Mangold has words on the topic. Speaking at the 2018 Writers Guild Association Beyond Words Panel, he said the following:You have to have a slightly off-pedal goal for your film, and the people who are gonna go: ‘What the fuck is that 8-minute scene between Professor X and Logan? That’s light 8 minutes of two guys in a tank talking.’ And it’s like ‘Yeah. That’s not gonna change because the vibe of this movie is an adult drama.’ That’s why, for instance, we wanted an R-rating. It wasn’t because of the violence and it wasn’t because of the language, but because I didn’t have to write a movie, and neither did my compatriots, for eleven-year-olds. If we had a rated-R movie, there were gonna be no Happy Meals. There can be no action figures. There was gonna be no marketing on Saturday morning cartoons or anything like it. So that, suddenly, you’re not making a movie written for someone under fourteen, fifteen. And that changes the length of scenes. It changes what they’re talking about.This is apparent when we compare the likes of Game of Thrones and Lord of The Rings. Both are fantasy epics, both involve creatures and magic, and both are set in a world different than ours. Yet, Game of Thrones is naturally more grounded in reality than Lord of The Rings, and as such, when a character meets the sharp end of a blade, you expect to see the real consequence to that action. With Lord of The Rings, not so much. The film, in tone, is fantastical. The unimaginable and unreal is around every corner, and as a result, the lack of blood in skirmishes doesn’t seem that outlandish.There’s undoubtedly a disparity between the content in teen-friendly summer action films and the absence of blood to make it age-appropriate. It seems impracticable to have Samuel L. Jackson’s Nick Fury shoot down a dozen bad guys with a machine gun, but it’s okay as there’s no blood splatter. As I said before, the rating system for movies, both domestic and foreign, has been scrutinized for years. It was actually the focus of the documentary This Film Is Not Yet Rated. Going forward, it’ll be interesting to see if the hold over the use of blood effects changes.Cover via Marvel Studios.Looking for more on the film and video industry? Check out these articles.“The Lucas Effect”: When Filmmaking Creativity Goes UncheckedWhat the Marvel Cinematic Universe Means for the Future of Film10k Vs 100k Vs 500k: Feature Film Budgets ComparedThe History and Power of Sound Design in the Film IndustryThese Tribeca Docs Will Renew Your Faith In The Power of The Cameralast_img read more