What Grinds my Gears.
Why I hate the USCCB Office for Film and Broadcasting
This is the first installment in what I hope will become a semi-regular occurence on FU-News, with occasional contributions from Tom Adams.
Recently, K-Mozart has taken to playing lots of commercials for limited-release movies. It seems every break one is met by a voice declaring Brokeback Mountain/Munich/Mrs. Henderson Presents/Memoirs of a Geisha/Other Movie Title Here to be the "best reviewed movie of the year." I'm always amazed that 5 or 6 movies can hold that distinction. Anyways, many of these movies are up for awards, so I can only assume that the movie companies think that a large segment of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences listens to K-Mozart.
So allegedly, these movies are well-reviewed and up for awards, which raises the question: are these movies actually any good? From my limited knowledge (limited mainly because I choose not to find out), my guess is a resounding "no". Somehow, I doubt a love story about gay cowboys will meet my high-criteria for quality cinema (namely, stuff blows up). But before I jump to judgement, I figured I might as well get someone else's opinion on the matter. Not trusting 2-time Idiot award-winner Scott Holleran of Box Office Mojo any farther than I can throw his hosting server, I went looking for a more reliable source for info. Now, it's very difficult to find a reviewer whose take on morality of movies I agree with. Sure Michael Medved's good in that manner, but I don't remember the last time I agreed with him on the enjoyability of a movie (it does happen from time to time, though). So I figured, I might as well try that mixed bag known as the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Office for Film and Broadcasting.
Now, we've had a love/hate relationship, me and the USCCBOFB (mostly hate). I still hold that they owe me ten bucks for getting me written up for watching "Last Action Hero" in the common room at Steubie. But I'm always ready to give them a second try, as they seem to be the only ones that will review a movie from a Catholic perspective.
So I browse their reviews of limited release movies. Of Brokeback Mountain, aside from liking it because it is "well-crafted" and "superbly acted", they say: "It treats the subject matter -- which a Catholic audience will find contrary to its moral principles -- with discretion." In the end, they give it an O - Morally Offensive. Phew. I thought I'd lost them for a moment.
So I browse down the list a bit more and find Mrs. Henderson Presents: "Patriotic true-life story of a wealthy widow (Judi Dench) who refurbishes London's dilapidated Windmill Theatre, and with the help of an artistic manager (Bob Hoskins), decides to produce topless musical revues -- with the showgirls remaining stationary by order of the Lord Chancellor (Christopher Guest) -- to entertain the troops during the blitz. Despite the seeming raciness of the theme, and several artfully posed tableaux of bare-breasted showgirls, Stephen Frears' well-made film, with a script by playwright Martin Sherman, is as decorous as a "Masterpiece Theatre" production, and features predictably fine performances by the leads. Partial female nudity throughout, and a fleeting scene of full-frontal male and female nudity, a premarital affair with tragic results, some innuendo, a smattering of profanity and rough language. A-III -- adults."
Say what?
Ok, now I haven't seen this movie, so I suppose that I shouldn't jump to conclusions, but a movie that accepts showgirl nudity as "artful" and whose protaganist is a woman who brings an occasion of sin to the soldiers? How is this not morally offensive? And how is pornography (as I consider any work designed to provoke a sexual reaction, yes, even romance novels) "artful"?
This reminded me of the trend that Tom and I long ago noticed in USCCB movie reviews: violence = bad, sex = good, violence with sex = best. To make our point, Tom and I came up with at least a dozen examples of action movies that had gotten O ratings and movies which I would not watch for fear of my immortal soul had received A-III.
To hammer home the point:
The Matrix. Good action movie. Rated O.
The Matrix: Reloaded. Same stylized action as the first, but this time with sex. Rated A-IV.
Rush Hour. Typical Jackie Chan fight movie. Rated O. (Note the review mentions the movies portrays the violence as having no consequences.)
Rush Hour 2. Typical Jackie Chan fight movie, this time with tons of sexual innuendo. Rated A-III. (Note the same reference to consequence-free violence. As if the sex made the violence not as bad.)
Interesting, no?
Now, let's seperate the two categories (movies that allegedly glamorize violence and movies that undoubtedly glamorize sex outside of marriage and pornography).
Fun action movies I like and am not at all worried about losing my soul over, as they have a noticable absence of sex:
Terminator 2. (Note the review mentions "overblown scenes of callous butchery" when the point of the movie is that senseless violence is wrong, which in itself is a bit of an irony.)
Die Hard. (Note, the review appears to be missing from the USCCBOFB site, but I know that it's rated O; take my word for it.)
Doom.
Okay, the flipside of the coin: movies that have an open and accepting take on premarital sex which I have to avoid or during which I look away from the screen.
Austin Powers. (Note, I'm not sayin' that parts aren't funny.)
Titanic. (Maybe they should dock it for potraying "consequence-free sex"?)
Casanova. (L, the new A-IV. I have heard little about this one, but in addition to being about a womanizer, this includes attacks on the Catholic Church. Note the USCCBOFB claims that this one has a "moral" ending, but considering some of the director's previous works (The Cider House Rules and Chocolat), I doubt the message is "sex is immoral outside of marriage". Click here for BOM's interview with the director. His ideas about "new Puritanism" should give you an idea about his views of pornography.)
I find this trend both interesting and disturbing. Let's compare the two: glamorized violence vs. glamorized sex. Yes, young children should not be watching excessively violent movies or movies that seem to portray violence as acceptable (that's why these movies are usually rated PG-13 or R). But is there anything morally wrong about watching a good action sequence? Am I endangering my soul? I hope not cuz, dang, I loves me a good Jackie Chan fight. And you know what else? Those movies that are "excessively violent" rarely portray violence against the innocent as acceptable, and I'll bet you that none of the makers believe it's okay to run around shooting innocent people and are not trying to push that message in their movies.
But what about the sex? Not only is it inappropriate for children, provocative images are innapropriate for any audience. We know that we shouldn't be exposing ourselves to obscene images, as this in itself is a sin. Also, I'll bet that the makers of the movies that openly portray pre-marital sex share that belief and use their movies as a vehicle to promote that belief.
So this brings us back to the USCCBOFB. For implicit acceptance of anti-Catholic beliefs and a non-chalant attitude towards specifically immoral images, FU-News rates the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Office for Film and Broadcasting O - Morally Offensive.
Wait... people actually use the USCCBOFB ratings? HAHAHAHAHA! The Murloc thinks those people need their heads examined!
ReplyDeleteThank goodness for impartial websites like www.screenit.com where one can make their own judgements on whether a movie is immoral or otherwise.
~RlrlrlRLRLLRLGRLGRLGlglglglgl-*shifty eyes*...~
Personally based on the distinguished use of reason and frequent references to Church doctrines, teachings and the Sacred Scriptures in their judgments, I rate the USCCBOFB a big fat WTF!... Oh yeah, and I want my $10 back.
ReplyDeleteIt is my personal opinion that the Catholic Bishops' Ratings are actually created by elderly married women who don't give a darn about sex but who can't stand the violence.
ReplyDeleteI too have run into inconsistencies with their ratings and have NEVER considered them a reliable source of Catholic teaching regarding movies. In fact, they seem anti-Catholic in their promotion of certain movies, like those Joe described.
I think a letter needs to be drafted to the Catholic Bishops addressing this issue. After all, they are a failure in their duty to be the teaching authority and light of Christ on earth in this respect, and we shouldn't let them get away with it.
And if I ever have to stomach another preview of Brokeback Mountain lauding it as the film of the century, it will be all I can do to refrain from kicking those actors where it counts to remind them that they are men. "Cowboys"? Give me a break! They wouldn't last 30 seconds against the likes of "real" cowboys like John Wayne. I think our Holy Father's statement reiterating the Church's teaching that homosexuals cannot be priests is so very, very applicable to the problems we face as a society today. Benedict reminds us that homosexuality is a disorder, which Brokeback stubbornly denies. I think its failure at the box office indicates that there is much hope for us. Now if only the Catholic Bishops would stomp that movie like it deserves...
Hey Cari,
ReplyDeleteRemember how you completely flipped out about Moulin Rouge and denounced Julie for liking that movie? You'll be happy to know the USCCBOFB gave it an A-III.
Also, how many people here don't like Jerry Maguire because of the sex scene? A-III as well.
Also, just looking through the "currently playing list", you come across this one: Rumor Has It (I've heard nothing about this film), "Vaguely incestuous theme, permissive view of premarital sex, sexual situations, some profanity, crude language and expressions, drug references, condom reference and partial nudity. L" Not O? Again, they even state outright that it has a permissive view of premarital sex.
I've never cared for the USCCB movie reviews, so I don't pay much attention to them. I didn't realize they were so bad. Sadly, I'm not surprised. If you want to read intelligent and thoughtful reviews from an authentically Catholic perspective, try Decent Films by Steven Greydanus. He doesn't review everything, unfortunately, but his reviews are worth reading. I think he also reviews films for National Catholic Register.
ReplyDeleteYes, Joe, I do remember the incident with Moulin Rouge. I watched ten minutes of it and walked out of the room, just because even I didn't want to see up any more women's skirts. I thought it was highly inappropriate for the person in question to invite two of her male friends to watch it, knowing that it could be the occasion of sin, esp. for them if not for her. That FUS allowed it to be viewed in a common room simply because it had the USCCBOFB's approval was absolutely ridiculous. And I got written up for viewing the Matrix...! Sheesh.
ReplyDelete....I'm a little confused.
ReplyDeleteI missed the reasoning why violins are morally offensive. Everyone knows they are a tiny offense where the larger ones are considered bass.
~The Blue Fox
(I was only caught once having a VCR at TAC but they never found my RCA/S-Video/VGA converter. By senior year I of course built a DVD/MP3 player in a nice cherry wood box and had full surround sound. But I was never caught using it..... Then again I lived in a trailer.)
Joe, that is very interesting. I also agree with Cari that that office is not fulfilling its role. Me thinks that the USCCB also probably has some ratings creep. If they judged a film by its view of premarital sex, then I'm guessing less than 50% of reviewed films would get better than an O.
ReplyDeleteAll in all though, I think that movie reviews can be tricky. What may be unwatchable (in a moral sense) for one person is unmoving to another.
For example, here is part of Steven Greydanis (the critic Mom B. mentioned) review of Moulin Rouge!.
"If ... this (story) sounds rather tawdry and decadent, well, it is. Moulin Rouge! is a sweet love story set in a nightclub-brothel, surrounded by a sea of drunken, dissolute old fools in eveningwear, cheap hookers, painted harlequins, assorted perverts and misfits, even, yes, a brace of dwarfs."
Despite the "decadent" setting, he still finds some redemptive qualites in the film (though he rates it as Adults only, with reservations).
Regarding the titillation factor, he gives the following comments:
"(At the same time, it’s worth noting that this is hardly a prurient or sexy film. Nicole Kidman is a lovely woman, but for a courtesan she doesn’t dress particularly provocatively, and, since Luhrmann has no more patience for lingering over Kidman than over anything else, the camera doesn’t ogle her. Likewise, back-to-back scenes in which Satine attempts to seduce two male characters are anything but erotic.)"
I saw a mere 10 minutes of Moulin Rouge!, and I found it unwatchable from an entertainment standpoint. Given what I've read, I doubt that I'll ever watch the film. I must admit that anyone who does watch the film should have certain expectations given that its setting is in a brothel.
Given that I've never seen the film, I can't comment on whether or not it is an occasion of sin.
Despite Cari's irate objections to the film, I have to admit that it in no way was Moulin Rouge an occasion of sin for me. In fact, it was so absent of anything remotely provocative that in the first 10 minutes, I nearly died of shear boredom. I do appreciate Cari's concern for my moral well-being, though.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, my reason for including it on this list was mainly to provoke a reaction from Cari, as one of my favorite past-times is saying intentionally inflamatory things to upset others, even though I don't mean it. (Likewise, trolling and flaming are two of my favorite message board activities.)
That being said, I'm not saying that movies should be rated O just for portraying, without passing judgement, premarital sex. The main point of this article was that I think that the USCCBOFB should take at least as harsh a view, if not harsher, of portrayal of sex in movies to portrayal of violence in movies, whereas the opposite is true. In reality, I would only expect a movie to be rated O if it expressly pushes or defends an agenda contrary to Catholic moral principles.
Back to occasions of sin, that is very true about what is wrong for one may not have an affect on another. There is a great deal of subjectivity in the matter. Along these lines, with Mrs. Henderson Present, I suppose that it is possible that the reviewer may be correct and that, objectively, the nudity is quite "artful" (in a Sistine Chapel sense) and not an occasion of sin for those with a good mastery of will. However, judging by the description, it sounds like something I should avoid and I believe that the reviewers at the USCCBOFB should take into account that, while they may be immune to the nudity, not everyone else will before giving it a blanket "OK for all adults" rating. I think they should be saying "while the nudity is not pornographic, one does need to excercise caution." Basically, they need to treat it with the same discretion they give towards violent movies.