Click on CAPCon Alert
image for explanation
A service to our youth through you,
their parents and grandparents, in His name by His Word
Showtime (2001), PG-13
Analysis Date: March 15, 2002
CAP Score: 27
CAP Influence Density: 2.13
Showtime (PG-13) -- What WAS the MPAA thinking!?
Distributed by: Warner Bros. Pictures
Director(s): Tom Dey
Producer(s): Bruce Berman, Channing Dungey, James Lassiter, Eric McLeod, Jane Rosenthal, Jorge Saralegui, Will Smith
Written by/Screenplay: Story - Jorge Saralegui, Screenplay - Keith Sharon, Alfred Gough, Miles Millar
Cinematography/Camera: Thomas Kloss
Music: Alan Silvestri
Editing: Billy Weber
In the middle of a drug bust headed by respected and seasoned police detective Mitch Preston (Robert DeNiro), police scanners picked up the drug bust and news crews sent helicopters to the bust location which tipped off the dealers that Preston and his partner were cops. Guns started blazing all about. About a thousand guns were barking their message ... until one gun spoke very loudly. One of the bad guys raised a special semi-automatic hand-held weapon that could level houses not to mention penetrate any protective vest worn by the police.
In the ensuing melee, street cop Trey Sellars (Eddie Murphy) happened on the scene and loused things up. Suspecting plain clothes Preston of being one of the bad guys, Sellars held Preston at gunpoint to await backup ... as the bad guys were getting away. Irritated at Sellars, Preston managed to handcuff Sellars to a chin link gate, with Sellars' own handcuffs no less, to resume his pursuit of the bad guys.
What a scene for the news cameras! Sellars handcuffed to a gate. As Preston tried to pursue the bad guys, a cable TV cameraman got in Preston's way and Preston knocked the camera out of the cameraman's hands and shot it. The cable TV company was miffed and threatened to sue the police department for a number of violations of their "rights." The chief is between a rock and a hard spot.
Not to worry. An enterprising Chase Renzi (Rene Russo) came up with an idea to rescue her failing company -- a reality based TV series of the life of the cop who shot the camera. Not wanting to impede free enterprise, the police chief agreed to let the TV company use Preston as their new star. That the TV company would drop their $10 million lawsuit if they could film Preston's everyday life for eight episodes was of lesser importance, of course. Everyday life every day. Every moment. Every place. Everything. For eight episodes. Just like Ed TV using Mitch instead of Ed.
What did Preston say about using him as the new reality TV star? NO! It was not until the Captain Winship (Frankie R. Faison) ordered Preston to cooperate in every way with the TV company did Preston budge. All seemed bright and amiable with the powers in place until Renzi got the bright idea that Preston needed a partner. The "logical" choice was Sellars since everyone knew him well by now as the chain link cop. And what better opportunity for Sellars. He was a moonlighting "actor" with no talent. This new show would give him his "big break" into show time. Indeed, it was Sellars that gave the new TV series its name - "Showtime", hence the name of this movie. A that point, the fur began to fly as the two cops went about their business of finding that big gun that could level houses and the one(s) responsible for it. Sounds a lot like a light-hearted comedy, right? Note however there were 96 uses of foul language in this 92-minute movie [Col. 3:8]. I knew even before calculations that the scoring was going to be for an R-13, mostly because of Eddie Murphy's foul mouth. And it sure is an R-13. With a final score of 27 (R-rated movies consistently earn final scores of 54 and below out of 100) and an influence density of 2.13 to corroborate the final score (R-rated movies typically earn CAP ID scores of 1.00 to 3.00, zero being the best), it is clearly equivalent to hardcore R-rated programming. Some manner of potty mouth comes at you at more than 60 times per hour! What WAS the MPAA thinking!? If you, like me, put video tapes through a cuss-free TV filter that shut off the sound with each foul word, there would be no point with this movie - there would be no sound to speak of and the plot (what there was of it) would be lost.
Well, I guess Showtime is clear-cut evidence the MPAA thinks it is okay to inundate your 13 year old with gutter talk and for your 13 year old (and younger) to talk that way by example [1 Cor. 15:33]. Please do not try that worn out lame excuse of "Kids hear that kind of talk everyday at school." Modern entertainment is probably the biggest reason so many kids talk that way in the first place! More than twice as many non-adults see movies each week than adults (as if that kind of language is supposed to be acceptable for even us adults). Even if kids (which includes at-home teens) do hear that kind of talk every day at school does that make it okay to talk that way? Also, the "I've talked that way before" excuse is vain. The first time of a sin does not excuse the second. Nor does the second excuse the third ... nor the thousandth. Nor does the second, the third ... the thousandth excuse the first. The MPAA must also think it is okay for young adolescents to be desensitized by five gunfire/assault murders [again 1 Cor. 15:33, which actually applies to all entertainment ignominy] and a volume of emboldenment of sexual immorality with sexual talk, innuendo and comments [Hebr. 13:4] typical of R-rated movies. All this surrounding illegal drug activity. Well, Jesus doesn't think such entertainment is okay for our youth [Luke 17:2]. OR us adults.
There is more to the ignominy of Showtime (R-13). I hope you will look to the listing in the Findings/Scoring section for a more complete representation of this movie.
If needed to focus or fortify, applicable text is underlined or bracketed [ ]. If you wish to have full context available, the Blue Letter Bible is a convenient source. If you use the Blue Letter Bible, a new window will open. Close it to return here or use "Window" in your browser's menu bar to alternate between the CAP page and the Blue Letter Bible page.
*******Food for Thought*******
As always, it is best to refer to the Findings/Scoring section -- the heart of the CAP analysis model -- for the most complete assessment possible of this movie.
Wanton Violence/Crime (W):
Offense to God (O)(2):
Christian Media News
Biblical based Management Consulting
|NOTE: The CAP Analysis Model makes no scoring allowances for trumped-up "messages" to excuse or for manufacturing of justification for aberrant behavior or imagery, or for camouflaging such ignominy with "redeeming" programming. Disguising sinful behavior in a theme plot does not excuse the sinful behavior of either the one who is drawing pleasure or example from the sinful display or the practitioners demonstrating the sinful behavior. This is NOT a movie review service. It is a movie analysis service to parents and grandparents to tell them the truth about movies using the Truth.|
|"There are some in the entertainment industry who maintain that 1) violent programming is harmless because no studies exist that prove a connection between violent entertainment and aggressive behavior in children, and 2) young people know that television, movies, and video games are simply fantasy. Unfortunately, they are wrong on both accounts." And "Viewing violence may lead to real life violence." I applaud these associations for fortifying 1 Cor. 15:33. Read the rest of the story. From our nearly seven years of study, I contend that other aberrant behaviors, attitudes, and expressions can be inserted in place of "violence" in that statement. Our Director - Child Psychology Support, a licensed psychologist and certified school psychologist concurs. For example, "Viewing arrogance against fair authority may lead to your kids defying you in real life." Or "Viewing sex may lead to sex in real life." Likewise and especially with impudence, hate and foul language. I further contend that any positive behavior can be inserted in place of "violence" with the same chance or likelihood of being a behavior template for the observer; of being incorporated into the behavior mechanics and/or coping skills of the observer. In choosing your entertainment, please consider carefully the "rest of the story" and our findings.|