I noticed you all watched a bunch of stuff that might be bad

[Nick_Alexander]

Note that the list makers did not call into question the sort of specific items that make a film R-rated or not–cursing, violence, nudity–the sort of things that many in this thread find objectionable. Nor did the commission object to films that had, at its root plot, something against the faith. As I posted earlier, Nosferatu was cited in its artistry, the Lavender Hill Mob (a heist film) was also cited, as was 2001 (which many 60’s hippies got high while watching). The Gospel According to Saint Matthew was a version created by an atheist/communist, The Passion of Joan of Arc appears to be anti-clerical, and Nazarin was written by then-anti-Catholic Luis Bunuel. Francesco, a film I did not like whatsoever, has a trifecta of moral problems with it: nudity, graphic violence, and Mickey Roarke as St Francis.

That said, the Commission’s list is well worth noting for the point that a film can point us to God, even if the film’s elements may be problematic. It’s not what the film is about, but how the film is about it.

 

[gam197]

originally posted** by Nick Alexander**
Note that the list makers did not call into question the sort of specific items that make a film R-rated or not–cursing, violence, nudity–the sort of things that many in this thread find objectionable.

Pope John Paul II certainly did in the article you posted

Unfortunately though, some cinema productions merit criticism and disapproval, even severe criticism and disapproval. This is the case when films distort the truth, oppress genuine freedom, or show scenes of sex and violence offensive to human dignity. It is a fallacy for film-makers to do this in the name of free artistic expression.

According to one article you posted, the 12 man commission is simply putting forth a list of films that does not have an imprimatur or blanket ecclesiastical approval, is not infallible or even authoritative.

This is a list put forth by a commission, that is it. The Catholic Church has always taught this and it hasn’t changed…

“The Catholic ideal does not advocate indiscriminate, undisciplined reading any more that it recommends seeing any movie or hearing any kind of music. However, the Catholic ideal also does not promote unreasonable censorship or see all non-religious or non-Catholic books as occasions of sin.”…The experienced, spiritual, mature, prudent reader discerns whether a good writer honestly and objectively portrays the actual nature of sin and evil as they truly are or merely incites the reader to confuse good and evil."

 

[Nick_Alexander]

Pope John Paul II certainly did in the article you posted

This is the case when films distort the truth, oppress genuine freedom, or show scenes of sex and violence offensive to human dignity

Not precisely. Schindler’s List–a Vatican 45 film–shows a sex scene early in the film, and there’s relentless violence in that same film… but both are examples which do not “distort the truth.” Oskar Schindler was clearly a womanizer, but the film is not about his womanizing tendencies, but about his redemption. The violence in this film is excrutiating, but it is also, to the best of Spielberg’s ability, a truthful retelling of the horrible atrocities that should never happen again. Neither the nudity nor the violence are filmed in such a way where what is being conveyed as “a positive thing.”

The same can be said for “Saving Private Ryan”–a film whose opening twenty minutes is absolutely terrifying cinema, but powerful in portraying what happened at Normandy… violence, but a violence that represents freedom from the oppressive Nazis. There’s a ton of foul language in that film, and accounts of soldiers trying to one-up each other in their own accounts with the opposite sex, but this is, again, how many soldiers talk.

I have thrown in my laurels towards “Magnolia”–a film which shows graphic sex, very briefly, in a way which demonstrates how one character has been oppressed by this. Certainly, the director had the choice to downplay the terrible imagery, but he chose to show it for the ugliness that it really was, briefly. Such a plot point is “truth”, true for her character, and truthful for her redemption that occurs later in the story.

Make no mistake–I am no fan of exploitation cinema, and I am most hesitant to see any such films that lie to the world, whether it’s a raucus “coming-of-age” comedy, or a seemingly innocent New Age-tinged G-rated cartoon. I would dare say that 90 % of films that contain elements of violence and nudity do it for exploitive purposes, and they do not add to the story being told.

But being that there are stories that have these elements, even approved by a 12-person committee at the Vatican, means that the elements themselves are not sinful, but the context in which they are portrayed. I seriously doubt that our pope, who did see two films with elements of offensive nature–“Life Is Beautiful” and “The Passion of the Christ,” would let an offensive film pass thru the Vatican 45 that he disagreed with–and I believe it was his influence that got “The Decalogue”–a thoughtful Polish miniseries based on the Ten Commandments, but also contains storylines of abortion, murder, and many other vices–passed.

According to one article you posted, the 12 man commission is simply putting forth a list of films that does not have an imprimatur or blanket ecclesiastical approval, is not infallible or even authoritative.

I never said it was.

The Catholic Church has always taught this and it hasn’t changed…

“The Catholic ideal does not advocate indiscriminate, undisciplined reading any more that it recommends seeing any movie or hearing any kind of music. However, the Catholic ideal also does not promote unreasonable censorship or see all non-religious or non-Catholic books as occasions of sin.”…The experienced, spiritual, mature, prudent reader discerns whether a good writer honestly and objectively portrays the actual nature of sin and evil as they truly are or merely incites the reader to confuse good and evil."

This is the most intelligent thing you’ve put forth on this thread. This is absolutely my point. That some people on this thread list all cinematic depictions as the latter (“inciting the reader to confuse good and evil”) is a mistake–considering that there are many significant films which “honestly and objectively portrays the actual nature of sin and evil as they truly are.” To judge those who have seen such films is not good.

 

[gam197]

originally posted** by Nick Alexander**
I seriously doubt that our pope, who did see two films with elements of offensive nature–“Life Is Beautiful” and “The Passion of the Christ,” would let an offensive film pass thru the Vatican 45 that he disagreed with

There are probably very few on these forums who did not see The Passion of Christ and Life is Beautiful is PG-13 which speaks for itself.

You may want to believe that Pope John Paul II would watch Saving Private Ryan(not on list) with “tons of foul language” but I am not so sure. Pope John Paul II as well as everyone else knows how soldiers talk.

originally posted** by Nick Alexander**
But being that there are stories that have these elements, even approved by a 12-person committee at the Vatican, means that the elements themselves are not sinful, but the context in which they are portrayed.

The majority of films on this list are from the 1920-1960 when films were much, much milder and many on the list are religious films. Only a few are in the 1980’s;there are three are PG and three not rated. Schindler’s list is the one R-rated movie. This is certainly not a list of R-rated films.

I agree that the church allows one to see a film like Schindler’s list because the contents of the movie depicts an important part of history. I am not disagreeing here.

I saw the Buttterfly Effect. It was loaded with foul language and sexual scenes so I tried to get it from “Clean Films” but the courts shut them down for tampering with films. I rarely watch R-rated films.

 

[Nick_Alexander]

There are probably very few on these forums who did not see The Passion of Christ and Life is Beautiful is PG-13 which speaks for itself.

The ratings system does not work. Films that were R-rated then merit a PG-13 today. Films that are R could be R-rated based on elements that few would find objectionable, given the proper context (“Passion of the Christ.”). Like I wrote earlier, if there are elements that you find distracting, go to www.screenit.com and support them. But the elements, as of themselves are not the problem.

You may want to believe that Pope John Paul II would sit watch Private Ryan(not on list) with “tons of foul language” but I am not so sure. Pope John Paul II as well as everyone else knows how soldiers talk.

I never said any such thing. I mentioned Saving Private Ryan because, to many, it is a seminal film on many fronts: it does its best to convey the truth of what happened at Normandy, but it also tells a story that speaks to men, and has a positive effect on male spirituality, endorsing heroism and courage in the face of adversity (and displaying cowardise in all its pathetic display as well). That soldiers talk dirty is a colorful but accurate depiction–not the point, but truth.

The majority of films on this list are from the 1920-1960 when films were much, much milder and many on the list are religious films. Only a few are in the 1980’s;there are three are PG and three not rated. Schindler’s list is the one R-rated movie. This is certainly not a list of R-rated films.

But it should also be noted that one single R-rating already disproves the point that R-rated films are to be avoided at all costs. That I mentioned many R-rated films that, in my humble opinion, fit this categorization are noteworthy. That said, if you feel tempted by such elements in films, far be it for me to tell you you are doing wrong by avoiding such film. The problems occur when one who avoids certain films chastises others who, in the mind of the church, is able to properly discern whether the offensive elements are truthfully examining the human condition.

I saw the Buttterfly Effect.

LOL. You’re basing this entire thread on THIS film?!? I couldn’t get past the first 45 minutes. I found myself laughing hysterically at the airport where I rented it–the film is simply the worst film I’ve seen in the last five years–but I went against my better judgment because a friend (now an acquaintance) highly reccommended it to me.

If you really don’t read reviews, or you really don’t follow the scene, then no wonder you would confuse the “truth” behind Magnolia and Saving Private Ryan verses the “awfulness” of Butterfly Effect. My prescription: read www.decentfilms.com on a consistent basis. Read www.lookingcloser.com for reviews. www.ChristianityToday.com does fine reviews as well. churchofthemasses.blogspot.com is also highly recommended. There’s a community of Christian movie reviewers called www.artsandfaith.com that is very adamant to finding quality films that fulfill the searching of “truth”, regardless of rating.

But if it’s offensive elements that you dislike, then screenit.com is the better site. The ratings system is faulty.

Nick

 

[gam197]

My husband watched “Saving Private Ryan” but I couldn’t get by the first scenes because of foul language. I would rather watch “D-Day”, an older film. “Blackhawk Down” was a film I would have liked to view but the foul language was too much.

I am not basing my views on one film but many. Hollywood does not have to show me reality as I know reality. I do find R-rated and some PG-13 films offensive.

Yes it is the offensive elements that I mind. I will join Screenit but I am still not sure that will solve it. I had hoped that “Clean Film” would be able to sell these films with “elements” taken out but no such luck so I’ll wait and see what technology has to offer.

 

[Joe_5859]

I feel like I’m butting in on a private conversation between gam197 and Nick Alexander, but what the heck, I’ll post anyway.

I think I understand where both of you are coming from. I tend to agree with Nick that the use of certain things in art like violence are not wrong in and of themselves, but one must look at how they are used.

That being said, I also understand gam197’s hesitation. My wife is extremely sensitive to things like violence and foul language in movies (much more so than me). Even if something like violence is used in a good way (like Schindler’s List or The Passion), it is often still too much for her.

Far be it from me to speak for anyone, but from what I have been reading, I do not think Nick is advocating that something like “Schindler’s List” where violence is used properly is, therefore, appropriate for everyone. I also do not think that gam197 is saying that, because violence in a movie such as “Saving Private Ryan” is offensive to her, it is offensive to everyone.

So perhaps you two really agree?

Forgive me for butting in! I’m just trying to be helpful! Just let me know if I’ve overstepped my bounds!

 

[Nick_Alexander]

Far be it from me to speak for anyone, but from what I have been reading, I do not think Nick is advocating that something like “Schindler’s List” where violence is used properly is, therefore, appropriate for everyone.

If I like a film that has unsavory elements, I would always cushion it with a warning, that such films are not for everybody. It’s akin to recommending an awesome beafsteak burger joint to a vegan.

I also do not think that gam197 is saying that, because violence in a movie such as “Saving Private Ryan” is offensive to her, it is *offensive *to everyone.

If this is gam197’s view, it goes against the title of the thread, which appears rather judgmental. If anything, I am taken aback with such comments, and was addressing that, drawing attention to the Pope’s writings on the matter.

I appreciate you attempting to play peacemaker, Joe!

Nick

 

[gam197]

Thanks Joe,

I do understand the church teaching that music, novels, TV shows, films have “artistic value” and so are judged from different point of view. I am not arguing that people can’t view or listen to these artistic formats but wonder what limits there are if any according to the Catholic Church. The Church needs to clarify.

The violence in the movie is not offensive to me; sometimes there is overkill. It is more the language and steamy nude scenes.

My father would be ripping and we kids would know it because he say “you’re so full of baloney”.

Nick, you function at a higher level of understanding and would selectively pick out only those movies that you feel have some redeeming value.

Any movie with an R rating or any game with a M17 rating would likely show up at my house. A movie like “Bring It Home” would be normal. There is no discussion of what this character means or is the plot realistic, it is simply a movie.