“An annual study of the moral content in Hollywood movies has found that films flaunting sex, nudity, violence, foul language and criminal behavior do not resonate in America. They simply don’t sell.”

“Clearly, sex does not sell as well as the mass media wants us to believe.”

“Family product sells, and R-rated product does not.”

Do you believe these statements, from a Washington Times report about a study by the Christian Film & Television Commission? I don’t.

Among the organization’s analyses are findings that “from 2000 to 2003, movies with ‘no nudity’ brought in an average $137.8 million across the nation” and “films that depicted ‘full male and/or female nudity’ in those same years brought in an average of $43 million.” Also, “the 78 movies that contained ‘no-sex’ content averaged $37.6 million at the box office in 2003. Comparatively, the 95 movies with ‘implied sex’ averaged $32.1 million. Another 71 movies with ‘briefly depicted sex’ averaged $25 million; and 35 movies with ‘extensive, excessive or graphic sex’ averaged $17.1 million.”

What do things findings mean? I don’t think much, and they especially don’t mean that R-rated films don’t sell. First, did CFTVC do anything to consider how other factors affected the box office performance of the films it studied — factors like marketing, star appeal, critical reviews, film budgets, etc.?

Secondly, what about the nearly omni-used PG-13 rating? Those films are often more offensive than the R-rated films. And if you’re purely considering “full nudity” in R-rated films, you’re looking at a lot of small, limited market arthouse films that are never going to draw the way big studio movies are. Those will drag down the R-rated revenue numbers.

Comparatively, few arthouse movies are rated G or PG. Studios produce family fare, mostly, when they feel like there will be a big payoff. You could say that’s the point CFTVC is trying to make, but I’m guessing that these films do better because a lot of times they are big budget. Pixar and other animated films, for example, always come with a big budget and must do well or else the studios won’t take a chance with them. It’s easier to take off your clothes and get money for less cost, than to use animation or special effects and try to recover the cost you put into it.

As for R-raters not selling, you need look no further than last weekend, when “Dawn of the Dead” outdrew “The Passion.” Granted, the zombie flick was in its first week and Gibson’s film was in its fourth week, but there’s still an appetite for gore.

And though it is considered “moral,” does anyone doubt that “The Passion” would not have done as well if the flogging and crucifixion had been staged in a much more tame way? Sure, the graphic nature was part of the power of the film, but nevertheless was what caused the buzz. It was even promoted on some horror movie websites because of “the gore.”

I believe there is a significant, vocal audience for wholesome entertainment that should not be ignored. But I also believe there is at least an equally sizable audience for graphic sex and violence. What that says about the culture as a whole is it is divided, just like the political makeup.