What Are the Decent Films?
Entertainment, Art, and Culture in Church Teaching
Written for This Rock magazine
By Steven D. Greydanus
"Christians are called to be separate from the world."
"You can’t compromise with sin."
"There are much better ways to spend one’s time."
"You wouldn’t eat something that had a bit of arsenic mixed in
it, would you?"
As a Catholic film critic, I hear remarks
like this from time to time put forward in defense of the view
that Christians should avoid (a) movies in general, (b) movies
made after 1960, (c) all but the most innocuous family fare, (d)
all movies except those that have an uplifting moral or spiritual
message, and so on.
Precisely what constitutes unacceptable "worldliness" or
"compromise" differs from one objector to another. For one, a
single profane or even merely coarse expression may be enough to
condemn an entire movie, however uplifting or wholesome it might
be on balance. Others draw the line at attire that falls short of
their standards of modesty, to say nothing of actual nudity.
Still others, displaying almost religious faith in the authority
of the MPAA, seem to consider an "R" rating a virtually
infallible form of reverse imprimatur (though recently with a
unique exception clause for one R-rated movie, Mel
Gibson’s The Passion of the
This rigorous approach to film appears to be more prevalent
among non-Catholic Christians than among Catholics. A number of
Protestants working in the film industry have confided to me that
in their experience Catholics tend to "get" film better than
Christians of other stripes. I also know Protestant film writers
who face frequent assaults for daring even to devote time and
attention to Hollywood that could be better spent on more
Still, it’s not hard to find this kind of rigorist approach
among Catholics, too. One also meets Catholics who admit, perhaps
sheepishly, to enjoying the very films condemned by their more
scrupulous neighbors, and are worried if they are as good
Catholics as they ought to be.
A more nuanced view
As with all errors, there are elements of
truth in the rigorist approach to film. Movies can — and
too often do — contain morally objectionable content, and this
can have a harmful influence on individuals and on society. The
Second Vatican Council decree Inter Mirifica, "Decree on the Media
of Social Communications," warns men of the dangers of employing
media like film "contrary to the plan of the Creator and to their
own loss" (IM 1).
Inter Mirifica goes on to affirm "the absolute primacy
of the objective moral order," meaning that the moral order
"surpasses and fittingly coordinates all other spheres of human
affairs — the arts not excepted — even though they be endowed
with notable dignity" (IM 6). The decree also exhorts men to
avoid presentations that "may be a cause or occasion of spiritual
harm to themselves, or that can lead others into danger through
base example, or that hinder desirable presentations and promote
those that are evil" (IM 9).
At the same time, Inter Mirifica outlines principles of
a Catholic approach to film and other media that is much more
positive and nuanced than the rigorist view. Where the rigorist
view often regards entertainment as well as art and culture as
indifferent at best if not frivolous, or even as a distraction or
temptation, the Vatican II decree affirms entertainment,
culture and art as positive goods. These are not the
only goods that the media can and should serve, but they
remain good in themselves, not merely as a means to some other
Specifically, Inter Mirifica states that the media, "if
properly utilized, can be of great service to mankind, since they
greatly contribute to men’s entertainment and instruction as well
as to the spread and support of the Kingdom of God" (IM 1), and
that young people especially "need a press and entertainment that
offer them decent amusement and cultural uplift" (IM 11). Later,
The production and
showing of films that have value as decent entertainment, humane
culture or art, especially when they are designed for young
people, ought to be encouraged and assured by every effective
means. This can be done particularly by supporting and joining in
projects and enterprises for the production and distribution of
decent films, by encouraging worthwhile films through critical
approval and awards, by patronizing or jointly sponsoring
theaters operated by Catholic and responsible managers. (IM
Certainly we must not overlook the qualifiers that
entertainment and culture must be "decent" and "humane," nor the
other goods (i.e., "instruction" and even "the spread and support
of the Kingdom of God") that the media can and should serve.
The decree does not state, however, that entertainment
is of value only as a tool for instruction or for
spreading and supporting the Kingdom of God. Nor does it state
only that people need only be shielded from
indecent entertainment and culture, or that decent
entertainment and culture are needed only in order to combat
indecent entertainment and culture. Rather, it declares
entertainment and culture in themselves to be things that people
"need" — part of a "great service to mankind."
Unfortunately, many Christians and even some Catholics are
suspicious of entertainment for its own sake, and even of art and
culture. "There are better ways to spend one’s time" is a common
refrain for those who take this view. Why watch a movie when one
could be praying the rosary, reading scripture or the lives of
the saints, volunteering at church or in a soup kitchen?
Obviously, prayer, devotional reading, and service are very
necessary and worthwhile acts, and certainly God doesn’t want us
spending all our free time seeking entertainment and amusement.
But neither does he require or wish all Christians to spend all
their spare time in the pursuit of expressly religious and
charitable works. Play, recreation, and amusement are also
pleasing to him. He created us to enjoy them, and it is not only
concupiscent sloth that attaches us to them. Of course sloth may
incline us to inordinate attachment to diversion, just as
concupiscence may inordinately attach us to any finite good
(food, alcohol, comfort, work, sleep, sex, and so on). But the
thing itself, and its proper enjoyment, remains per se
God created us for play and amusement just as he created us
for work, prayer, and community. In particular he created us for
art and culture: to create and look at images; to fashion stories
and music and dance, and to perform and enjoy them; to explore
imaginative scenarios of good and evil, of conflict and
It is in our nature to engage in and to enjoy these things, as
it is the nature of stars to shine and plants to grow. And, just
as the sun glorifies God by shining and plants by growing, so we
please and glorify him when we participate in wholesome aesthetic
activities and amusements. In fact, because man has free will, he
pleases God in a special way when he freely participates in the
goods proper to his nature. If he does so with a will to glorify
God, it can even be meritorious.
But what is "decent" entertainment or
"humane" culture? Must a decent film deal only with uplifting or
wholesome subjects, or may dark or disturbing themes also be
dealt with? Can a film include nudity or profanity and still be
"decent"? Can "humane culture" include popular films or genres
like action films and romantic comedies, or do only highbrow "art
films" count as true culture?
On the subject of disturbing and immoral themes and subjects
in art, Pope John Paul II expressed a profound insight in his
"Letter to Artists": "Even when they explore the darkest depths
of the soul or the most unsettling aspects of evil, artists give
voice in a way to the universal desire for redemption" (10). True
art, humane art, can be profoundly difficult and unpleasant, and
still represent a humane response to the fallenness of the world
and of mankind and to the necessity of redemption.
Likewise, Inter Mirifica declares that "the narration,
description or portrayal of moral evil" can "serve to bring about
a deeper knowledge and study of humanity" — though it adds that
such depictions must always be "subject to moral restraint, lest
they work to the harm rather than the benefit of souls,
particularly when there is question of treating matters which
deserve reverent handling or which, given the baneful effect of
original sin in men, could quite readily arouse base desires in
them" (IM 7).
Artists must, then, have the restraint to avoid presenting
audiences with likely occasions of sin. Obviously this does not
mean that they must avoid anything that could possibly be an
occasion of sin for anyone. The concupiscent disordering
of our desires varies so widely in nature and severity from one
person to another that even the most innocent imagery or
narrative imaginable could conceivably arouse base desires in at
least some people. For example, because there are foot-fetishists
in the world does not mean that a film must never show the
A good rule of thumb would be to avoid what is likely
to be an occasion of sin for reasonably healthy viewers. Also,
what is appropriate for adults may not be appropriate for the
young, and there is a duty to "safeguard" the young from what
"may be harmful at their age" (IM 12). Some rigorists argue that
adults should be held to the same standards of acceptability as
children, and that whatever is inappropriate for children should
also be considered inappropriate for adults ("If it’s sinful for
them, it’s sinful for me"). In speaking of shielding children
from what "may be harmful at their age," however, Inter
Mirifica clearly implies that such content need not be
harmful to those of another age.
One might think that the fact that sacred scripture itself
includes accounts of evils from adultery and murder to idolatry
and blasphemy would suffice to establish, in principle, the
legitimacy of treating such subjects in narrative form. Many
rigorists, though, seem to regard the sacredness of scripture as
grounds for an exception rather than a precedent. Try to extend
the example of scripture to merely human literature or artwork,
and you may be met with the response, "Are you equating human art
with God’s word?"
Of course the inspiration or non-inspiration of a given story
of adultery or rape doesn’t necessarily directly affect the
likelihood of its being an occasion of sin for the audience. If 2
Samuel 11’s account of David watching Bathsheba bathe can be
morally safe reading, so in principle could an equally restrained
story of a comparable event in a work of fiction.
True, it’s one thing to read a typically bare-bones account of
such an event in scripture, and another to see nudity or gore
graphically represented before one’s eyes. But then in addition
to sacred scripture there is also the history of Christian art to
consider, especially in the West. Realistic depictions of male
and female nudity, as well as grisly depictions of violent and
gory imagery, can be found in Christian churches all over Europe,
even in the Vatican itself. (Many critics of Gibson’s
Passion who complained about the contrast between the
terse gospel passion narratives and the explicit violence of the
film seemed strangely unaware that Gibson’s film is hardly the
first work of art in 2000 years to emphasize the physical horror
of the passion and crucifixion.)
Some rigorists, especially non-Catholics, go so far as to
condemn Western art along with the movies. Catholic rigorists are
unlikely to go so far, but may instead argue that the documentary
power of film, with its ability to capture movement and sound as
well as photographic detail, makes explicit nudity and violence
in that medium more problematic than in the most realistic
paintings or sculptures. (This is in a way analogous to the
Eastern Orthodox argument that two-dimensional iconography and
even relief sculpture are legitimate forms of sacred art, but
fully three-dimensional sculpture in the round is too much like
It is true that among the arts film poses special issues -
that it is especially liable to abuse by the unscrupulous, and
can be exceptionally insidious when so abused. "Moral restraint"
in its production and consumption is certainly necessary to avoid
either presenting or being confronted with likely occasions of
sin. But reasonable Catholic opinion will not insist on equating
"restraint" with an absolute ban on nudity, violence, profanity,
and so forth.
The Vatican film list
A concrete example of the standards of
Inter Mirifica applied to particular films is available in
another Vatican document: the 1995
Vatican film list. This list, published by the Pontifical
Council for Social Communications in commemoration of the
centenary of cinema, enumerates 45 "important films," each noted
for exceptional value in one of the three areas of "Religion,"
"Values," and "Art" (fifteen films in each area).
Titled simply "Some Important Films," this document is not
meant to offer a set of definitive or magisterial "top fifteen"
lists, nor to establish these particular films as definitely more
worthwhile than any film that was not included. "Not all that
deserve mention are included," the pontifical council
acknowledged in releasing the list.
For those who insist on a rigorist approach to film, though,
it’s hard to see how some of these films could be deemed
"deserving" of special note at all, except as films to
avoid. Nudity, sexual content, obscene or profane
language, and explicit violence can all be found in films on this
list. Some of the films also examine faith or religion with a
questioning or even skeptical eye, or depict Church authorities
in a negative light. Yet all demonstrate a level of restraint
that distinguishes them from morally unworthy productions that
pose a likely occasion of sin for viewers.
Take nudity and sexual content. In some of these films, nudity
is depicted in a nonsexual way, as when Schindler’s List
depicts concentration-camp inmates forced to cower naked in the
courtyard or in shower rooms. Some of the prisoners are old and
decrepit; some are shapeless and dumpy; all are terrified and
milling about. These scenes are not the least bit erotic or
prurient — quite the contrary. They elicit pity and horror, not
lust. Although they contain full frontal nudity, they cannot
remotely be considered likely occasions of sin.
Another example of nonsexual nudity can be found in The Mission, which depicts
the native Guaraní of South America with what the U.S.
bishops Office of Film and Broadcasting has helpfully termed
"ethnographic nudity" — that is, the sort of nudity required to
depict certain cultures, such as one finds in National
Geographic. Specifically, the Guaraní women wear no
tops, and Guaraní of both sexes wear loincloths that display
By its nature, the everyday nudity in The Mission is
both more pervasive and less distressing than that in
Schindler’s List. Yet The Mission is no more
prurient or exploitative than Schindler’s List. A typical
viewer will no more be incited to lust by this film than by
National Geographic. In fact, The Mission received
a tame PG rating (not even PG-13) from the MPAA.
This is not to say that that The Mission couldn’t
possibly present anyone with an occasion of sin. Certain
people may be more vulnerable on this point than others — for
example, adolescent boys, who can be so combustible that they
might find prurient interest even in National Geographic,
or in the Renaissance wing of an art museum. But for most
viewers, the nudity in The Mission shouldn’t present any
particular moral obstacle to viewing the film.
Not all the nudity in the films of the Vatican list is
nonsexual. Sexual nudity, sexually explicit dialogue, and
depictions of sexual activity can also be found in Schindler’s
Decalogue, Andrei Rublev, and others.
Some films on the list are practically catalogues of
disturbing, immoral, or otherwise problematic behavior necessary
to their theme or purpose. Andrei Rublev, set in medieval
Russia, is full of poetic imagery, moral and existential
questions, and religious themes. But its imagery can be
disturbing: There is a restrained depiction of a ritual pagan sex
orgy, with nude pagans running through the forest and coupling on
the ground; a naked witch sensuously kissing an Orthodox priest
bound cruciform; a horrifying scene of pillaging and warfare that
includes footage of a live cow on fire; a bawdy jester who
displays an upside-down human face drawn on his buttocks while
walking on his hands; and an instance of an extremely strong and
offensive four-syllable obscenity. Another "Religion" honoree
from the same director, The Sacrifice, includes a poetic,
non-explicit sequence depicting a man having sex with a witch
(levitating in midair above the bed) in order to avert the end of
Another Vatican list honoree, The Decalogue, consists
of ten unsettling one-hour films loosely themed around the Ten
Commandments. One episode deals with incestuous attraction
between a widowed father and the teenaged daughter who may or not
be his. Another includes explicit dialogue regarding female
sexuality in a scene in which a promiscuous woman seduces a young
voyeur who has been watching her through a telescope. Still
another involves a drawn-out, grisly murder. It should be noted
that The Decalogue is not a collection of morality tales,
not an apologia for the commandments. The work is concerned with
provoking moral thought in the viewer, but not with upholding a
specific moral code.
Not all of the films on the list are as difficult and
challenging as these. Films such as The Wizard of Oz,
(1933), Fantasia, and It’s a Wonderful
Life are also honored. This is not a list for expert
theologians or professional critics only, and popular films as
well as highbrow films are acknowledged as humane art.
In honoring certain difficult and challenging works, however,
the Vatican clearly means for viewers to watch these films in a
mature and judicious spirit, not passively imbibing everything
for entertainment’s sake, but critically evaluating what they see
and hear in light of the fullness of Catholic teaching.
This is in keeping with the teaching of Inter Mirifica,
which exhorts all who use the media to "endeavor to deepen their
understanding of what they see, hear or read" and "learn to pass
sound judgements" regarding them (IM 10). While noting that
primary moral responsibility for the proper use of the media
falls to those who produce and distribute it — as well as to
critics who inform the public (IM 11) — the decree also calls for
"audiences of different cultural backgrounds and ages" to be
instructed in "the proper use of the media" (IM 16).
An imperfect world
The rigorist rejection of all films that
contain anything in any way offensive often seems to imply that
merely watching a film is tantamount to approving
of everything in the film. "You wouldn’t eat something that
had even a little bit of arsenic mixed in it, would you?" they
ask, implying that whatever is in a film gets imbibed along with
One reply to this objection might be that if it comes to that,
people do consume trace amounts of arsenic all the time,
and are quite right to do so. Tap water, for example, commonly
contains some level of arsenic, but as long as the level is low
enough, it does no harm to drink the water — on the contrary, it
does great good, since we need water to live, and even slightly
arsenic-tainted water can sustain and preserve life. Experts
might quibble about exactly how much arsenic in drinking water is
acceptable, but none argues that the only acceptable level is
But a better reply might be to change the analogy. One can
enjoy a tasty rib dinner at a decent restaurant while leaving
inedible bits of gristle on the plate. One can appreciate a
pastor’s generally excellent homily while mentally bracketing a
dubious speculation or unfortunate phrasing. One can enjoy the
company of one’s neighbors while deliberately overlooking or
forbearing with their petty faults.
Of course it’s also true that some friends, some churches, and
some diets would do you more harm than good. We have to be
discriminating. We want wholesome society, a good church, healthy
food. But the standard of what is wholesome or good or healthy
can never be "absolute perfection." If a man insisted on perfect
friends, a perfect church, and perfect food, he would die
friendless, unchurched, and quickly.
Like all things human, films and other works of art and
culture are subject to limitations, imperfections, and flaws.
Some are so flawed that they are unwholesome and should be
avoided. But a thing can be basically wholesome without
necessarily being perfect.
As an example, consider the family film Babe, a delightful film with no
potential drawbacks other than a few scenes of menace that might
frighten the very young and very sensitive, and a single line in
which the farm couple’s city-slicker son-in-law ends a sentence
with the phrase "for Christ’s sake."
Profanity is always wrong, but of course we make characters in
stories do all sorts of bad things without necessarily approving
of them, and profanity is no exception. In principle, an actor
can recite a line involving profanity without being personally
profane, just as a Christian actor playing St. Peter on Holy
Thursday might swear that he has never heard of Jesus, or indeed
as faithful Catholics all over the world on Good Friday utter the
damning line, "We have no king but Caesar." This kind of sin is a
matter of intention, not just syllables, and an actor who says
"for Christ’s sake" is not necessarily profane.
That’s not to say that profanity in drama is neither here nor
there. It can be morally objectionable, especially if used
gratuitously or in a way likely to contribute to its casual
acceptance in society.
Is the brief profanity in Babe justified or
unjustified? It might be argued, on the one hand, that the line
underscores a cultural divide between the farm couple and their
callow son-in-law. On the other hand, it might be answered that
this point doesn’t justify the use of profanity in a family film
of this sort.
Let’s assume the latter view, that the line is gratuitous and
unjustified. Babe is, then, an imperfect film. It would be
better if that objectionable line had been omitted. But does this
one line make the difference between a wholesome film and an
unacceptable one? Does it neutralize Babe’s positive themes of
treating others with courtesy and respect, overcoming prejudices,
facing challenges, and so forth? Would the world be better off
had this movie never been made?
No. That would be the same kind of thinking that would result
in refusal to enjoy the company of imperfect people, to attend an
imperfect church, to or eat imperfect food. That’s no way to
Going back to 1936, a Jesuit priest named Father Daniel Lord SJ founded the Legion of Decency. It was very successful in keeping the film industry making decent films. Every year on the feast of Christ the King every Catholic church had its parishioners take the pledge to avoid going to indecent movies. Why donít we bring back the Legion of Decency?
The Legion of Decency was founded in 1933. Fr. Lord did not found it, although he supported its work, as did Pius XI. Fr. Lord did cowrite the 1930 Production Code, which governed Hollywood morality from 1934 until its eventual demise in 1967, when it was replaced by the MPAA age-based ratings system.
Prior to the Legion, American Catholic film criticism operated on a “white list” basis, meaning that approved films were positively reviewed, but problematic films were simply ignored rather than “black listed.” The Legion changed this by classifying movies for moral and age appropriateness including condemning movies considered unacceptable. Countless Catholics vowed to avoid films classified as condemned, and sympathetic non-Catholics including Protestants, Jews and even atheists supported the work.
Fearing organized Catholic boycotts, Hollywood finally agreed to a system of strictly enforced moral self-censorship, and in 1934 the major studios established the Production Code Administration, which worked with studios as films were being developed and issued a seal of approval to finished films that were judged to meet the moral standards of the Production Code. The PCA was headed from 1934 to 1954 by Hollywood insider and Jesuit-trained Catholic Joseph I. Breen.
Cracks in the system began to appear from the post-war years onward. The rise of foreign film and independent theaters showed that it was possible to make and distribute movies without the PCA seal — and such films might have considerable artistic or even moral substance while treating subject matter in ways not permitted by the Code. With changing social mores, the line between violations of morality and violations of decorum became harder to find.
The effort to apply moral concerns in an objective, codifiable way, whether by the PCA or the Legion, was always problematic. Breen had strong ideas about what was and wasn’t acceptable, and while I think there’s a lot to be said for his approach, there were also flaws.
In the 1960s the Legion of Decency was absorbed into the US bishops conference, and eventually became the Office for Film and Broadcasting as we know it today. It still carries on the work of classifying movies for moral and age-based appropriateness, including classifying some films as morally offensive. The fundamental difference is that these decisions are no longer considered binding on individual Catholics, as they once were at least for those Catholics who took an annual vow to avoid offensive films — meaning, of course, films condemned by the Legion.
Continue Reading This Item >
What do you think of the ClearPlay DVD and membership system?
The ClearPlay system differs from the approach pioneered by CleanFlix and similar services in that it does not physically edit or alter movie media such as DVDs, but uses customized filtering routines to skip designated portions of films. ClearPlay editors create the filtering routines for each film, tagging potentially objectionable material under various categories which viewers can customize according to their own preferences.
Legally, this system has been upheld as consistent with copyright law, in contrast to the CleanFlix approach, which was successfully sued for copyright violations by Hollywood filmmakers.
Artistically, it’s a grey area. Some feel that a film should be seen as the filmmakers intended or not at all. While this argument may be weakened somewhat by existing editing practices for network television and the like, such edits are usually authorized by the studio which has negotiated these rights with the filmmakers. Third-party censors producing editing viewing experiences without any agreement with the filmmakers or studios strikes some as problematic.
Continue Reading This Item >
I recently stumbled onto your website, and I absolutely love it. Although I come from a slightly different background — I’m a politically liberal Jew — I love your perspective on movies. I especially enjoy the fact that you grade a movie’s morals not on its actual violence/nudity content, but the message that it’s sending out — that’s unusual for a Christian review site, and I think it’s much more honest.
I’m wondering if you could post a couple of reviews of some of my favorite flicks. First order of business is definitely Chinatown, that gorgeously constructed neo-noir that some critics consider to be cinematically flawless (it’s hard to argue with) and is one of my all-time favorites. I’m surprised you haven’t already reviewed it, since you already have a couple of Polanski entries here. I also would love to know what you think of Fargo. It’s my favorite Coen Brothers movie; despite the violence, I think it’s warmly empathetic, very funny, and even morally sound (and Frances McDormand is amazing in it). I’d love to know what you think of these two. Thanks for all the great work. Keep it up!
It’s especially gratifying for a writer to be heard at any sort of distance or from a different point of view. Although I write from a particular perspective, I would hate to think that my work addresses only a narrow spectrum of opinion or belief.
There are, alas, a great many crucial films that I have never reviewed, although I may be getting to a few of them sooner rather than later. An upcoming DVD edition of the Godfather films will probably provide the impetus to finally take on that challenge. And while Chinatown will, alas, probably remain in Decent Films limbo for the foreseeable future, by a strange coincidence I was contemplating a Fargo review just this morning, in part perhaps by way of offering further commentary on No Country for Old Men (which I’ve written about but not reviewed). I will take your email as another straw in the wind leaning in that direction.
Link To This Item >
I’ve read several reviews and I’d like to say that they are all particularly well written. I’d like to commend you on that. I’m emailing you now, I suppose, with a couple questions about being a Christian and a film buff (much like me).
The past few days, I’ve been sort of re-evaluating what I deem acceptable in movies when it comes to violence, profanity, etc. Normally, I’d jump at the chance to see the recent mindless action movie or, with a few exceptions, the most recent pointless comedy.
I guess my dilemma all started a couple days ago when I saw the movie Brain Dead. It’s an older zombie comedy movie with gratuitous gore by Peter Jackson before LOTR made him famous. I became aware by the end of the movie that something happened that didn’t happen before. The usual enjoyment and sometimes laughter at the over the top gore wasn’t there anymore. Sure, I laughed during the movie, but by the end, I couldn’t laugh about it before.
The problem is, though I know that I take my Catholic faith very seriously, I feel as though I’m doing God a disservice by appreciating and enjoying films that promote these types of materials. I have a fairly large film collection (about 200 movies). Though only about 5–7% of them are considered objectionable, I’m not entirely sure what to do. I mostly own action movies (Die Hard, Terminator, etc.) comedies (Monty Python and the Holy Grail, Blazing Saddles) and a few horror movies (Saw, 28 Days/Weeks Later, zombie movies)
By watching movies that contain these materials, am I offending God in the process? When evaluating movies for you, how do you know when you’ve crossed the line between good entertainment and something that’s negative for the soul?
You raise some good questions, and I’m gratified by the seriousness with which you are considering these issues.
I haven’t seen some of the films you mention, but in principle I can think of several possible reasons why someone watching a film he has always enjoyed might find himself reacting differently to it as you have.
It’s certainly the case that growing and maturing in one’s faith can alter one’s sensibilities and reactions are no longer the same. It’s also true that one’s tastes and sensibilities in general change over time. Whether for faith-related reasons or other reasons, it’s not uncommon to find ourselves outgrowing our previous tastes in movies, music, books, clothes and so forth — and acquiring new tastes that previously might have held little interest for us.
This isn’t necessarily to denigrate the tastes of youth (though sometimes they should be). It’s simply to say that we aren’t the same person at 25 that we are at 15, or at 45 that we are at 35, etc. Not that we are totally different either — much of what we enjoyed or disliked in our youth may be with us throughout our lives — but when and where this doesn’t happen, it may simply suggest that it’s time to move on, to enjoy other things. This doesn’t necessarily mean we need regret our previous tastes and experiences — although again in certain cases we should.
Continue Reading This Item >
It’s a shame and sad that you have so much knowledge and intelligence that you aren’t entertained by simple movies like the rest of us. I feel sorry for you. Well at least you get paid for what you do, I guess that’s what counts. Your reviews miss the point quite often. But it’s fun reading your reviews. Just like watching movies — it entertaining, that’s all.
Let me tell you a story.
Two men are at a wine tasting, and try three vintages from three different tables. The first man enjoys all three.
The second man enjoys the first drink, the same as the first man. But when they get to the second table, he demurs: “It’s flabby. Nothing special. A little short on the finish.” At this, the second says, “It’s a shame you have so much knowledge that you can’t enjoy a simple drink like the rest of us.”
Then they try the third vintage, which the first man enjoys every bit as much as he did the first. This time, though, the second man goes nuts. He’s rhapsodizing about finesse, breeding, balance, hints of this and that, etc. He is in a transport of joy.
Which man do you think enjoyed the wine tasting more?
Link To This Item >
I would like to thank you for your ministry! It has been helpful for me in deciding what to show my children. I have an unrelated question for you that you may or may not know the answer to. My niece told us about a website (Shows4me.com) that offers free videos, have you heard of this site. My concern would be if this is considered pirating, I looked at the site, it has everything imaginable. I thank you in advance for your response. May God continue to bless your ministry.
As far as I can tell, Shows4me.com doesn’t actually host movie and TV show files, but rather provides links to other websites, such as www.tv-links.co.uk, where such content has been posted.
At least much of this content, if not all, is pirated, i.e., it has been illegally recorded and/or posted for public consumption. Some of the movies will have been secretly recorded via hand-held camera in a movie theater; other offerings may have been copied from DVDs, TiVo’ed or obtained from a legal source but then illicitly posted on the Web.
Entertainment piracy is a form of theft, and thus a violation of the seventh commandment. Sites that offer pirated content should be avoided; we should stick to legal ways of obtaining and viewing content. This usually means we will have to pay for it in some form or other, which is only fair (“The laborer deserves his wages”).
Link To This Item >
Does a moral-spiritual value of +4/-4 mean the moral value is 4 and the spiritual value is 4? I have been thinking of them as separate, e.g. moral/spiritual. I have a hard time rationalizing how a movie can have a moral-spiritual rating of +4/-2 if both numbers relate to the same attribute.
Except for my confusion I like your ratings and use them to help select weekly movies for the Christian retirement community where I live.
Like many critics, I don’t really like ratings. They’re a convenience to the reader as a quick index of the critic’s opinion, but sometimes readers seem to regard the rating as the ultimate verdict on the film, and the review as the accompanying opinion clarifying or justifying the rating.
There are really too many ways for a movie to be variously good or bad, or both at the same time, for any ratings system to do justice to any film worth discussing. In my ratings system, I’ve tried to strike a balance between the complexities of what makes a film worthwhile or not and the built-in limitations of any ratings scheme.
“Moral-spiritual value” in my system is is an umbrella category, not two separate criteria. The reason for split ratings like +3/-2 is that it is often not possible to consider the moral-spiritual significance of a film as “good” or “bad” in an undifferentiated way. Movies often combine significant positive and negative elements, both of which demand to be acknowledged in their own right.
For example, I gave Juno a split +3/-2 rating. On the +3 side, I found Juno’s strikingly pro-life resonances worthy of enthusiastic acknowledgment. On the other hand, the rather uncritical treatment of teen sexual activity, divorce and remarriage and the sheer crudity of the first half-hour in particular add a problematic element to the film.
For the record, I believe the widest split rating for any Decent Films review is for Ingmar Bergman’s The Seventh Seal, which I called at +3/-3. On the one hand, the film’s intense spiritual thirst, moral conflict and religious awareness are profoundly humanistic and worthwhile; on the other hand, Bergman seems to point away from religion in various ways.
The ratings at either extreme, +4 and -4, are intended to express a degree of praise or censure that is unqualified, and I don’t believe I have ever mitigated them with a contrasting rating. Thus, no actual movie would have the example you give,+4/-2.
Hope that makes some sense.
Link To This Item >
I happen to enjoy your ratings and frequently find my taste agreeing! I would love it if there were some way to sort your ratings by Grade/Moral value so that I can look for movies to see that are recommended, instead of having to read through all the archives.
There is! Go to the Search page (the link next to the search field). There you can sort reviews by ranges of any given criteria: recommendability, artistic-entertainment rating, moral-spiritual rating, age appropriateness, year of release, genre, USCCB rating, MPAA rating, and other criteria.
There are also quick searches in the leftnav offering top recommendations in various genres, top-recommended films, most morally-spiritually significant films, and even a couple of categories for non-recommended films (if you’re interested in negative reviews). Thanks for your interest.
Link To This Item >
The Pope’s address which spoke of violence in movies — does this mean we are not now permitted to watch certain movies that have a certain kind of violence?
I’m not sure whether this is the address you mean, but in his 2007 message for World Communications Day Benedict XVI decried “programmes and products — including animated films and video games — which in the name of entertainment exalt violence and portray anti-social behaviour or the trivialization of human sexuality is a perversion, all the more repulsive when these programmes are directed at children and adolescents.” The pope went on to say, “I appeal to the leaders of the media industry to educate and encourage producers to safeguard the common good, to uphold the truth, to protect individual human dignity and promote respect for the needs of the family.”
The Holy Father does not criticize all media presentations that include violence — or sexuality — but those that exalt violence or trivialize human sexuality, especially when they are targeted at youth.
He also qualifies his comments with the important phrase “in the name of entertainment.” Where violence or sexuality is served up as entertainment, human dignity is demeaned. But entertainment is not the sole function of film. For example, films can also challenge, inspire and educate.
Appropriate depictions of violence which put it in its true moral light — which either highlight the evil of wrongful violence, or depict morally legitimate violence employed to resist evil — do not exalt violence in the way that the Holy Father has in mind, and may aim to do more than just entertain. (This is not to demean entertainment in itself.) Within moral limits, depictions of sexuality may also serve legitimate artistic purposes, though here as with violence restraint is needed to avoid appealing to base desires and offering occasions of sin, as per Inter Mirifica 7.
Pope Benedict’s mention of “animated films” might be confusing to some Americans because Hollywood doesn’t produce the kind of animated films the pope has in mind. However, the Holy Father is likely aware of the ultraviolent and sexual content not uncommon in Japanese anime. Unfortunately, Americans do have more familiarity with the sort of video games to which the Holy Father refers, e.g., in the Grand Theft Auto series.
Not all movies with violent or sexual content exalt or trivialize acts demeaning to human dignity. For example, the 1995 Vatican film list honors a number of films that include violent and/or sexual content, but do so in a way that does not exalt violence or trivialize sexuality. Schindler’s List is a well-known example; other relevant examples include Andrei Rublev, The Mission and The Decalogue.
Link To This Item >
I would like to know a list of movies suitable for kids under five.
Here are some of my favorite movies for children under five. These are general recommendations; for kids under five you need to know your own kid. I recommend watching the movie ahead of time. Most of these have something or other that some sensitive children may have trouble with; I’ve noted a few obvious points below.
Also highly recommended in non-feature viewing:
Hope that helps.
Link To This Item >
Is it a sin to watch a film with nudity/partial nudity if you’re not watching the film to see the nudity, and the nudity does not cause you to sin?
Your question reminds me of the wise priest who said, “The Catholic Church teaches authoritatively, has always taught authoritatively, and will always teach authoritatively, that the visual arts … are a grey area.”
I’ve written about nudity in film before, notably in “What Are the Decent Films?”
Whether nudity in a film causes the viewer to sin is, of course, the chief issue, though not the only issue. There is also the dignity of the actors to be considered. Gratuitous or exploitative nudity is always wrong, at least for the filmmakers.
While the presence of some morally problematic content does not necessarily make a movie morally unwatchable for the viewer, it isn’t something to take lightly, and of course the more prominently problematic content is featured in a film, the more of an obstacle it becomes.
Incidentally, actual nudity isn’t the only issue here. Lascivious displays involving more or less clothed bodies are also contrary to human dignity.
That said, Catholic moral theology does not support the conclusion that all nudity in art, including cinema, must always be considered morally wrong, or that Catholics must always avoid all art that includes such nudity, even if that nudity is at times morally problematic.
Link To This Item >
I am the Dean of Students at a small Catholic college in Canada. Our students are required to “get permission” to watch movies in order to help with the discernment of wheather or not it is appropriate for viewing in community. We have been hoping to compile a list of movies, mostly modern ones (last 25 years) that are pre-approved, such as the ones recommended on your website. Is there such a list that you wouldn’t mind sharing with us? I would be most grateful for your assistance.
Who is responsible for approving or not approving movies? I can’t predict what movies would or wouldn’t meet with the approval of a given authority, although I could propose possible candidates.
As a place to start, you might try searching via the Decent Films search page on movies from 1985 and later, rated for teens and up or less restrictive, with a rating of B or higher. At this writing that search currently yields 252 results.
You can also try other custom searches on genre (e.g., religious themes) and moral-spiritual value.
Link To This Item >
I appreciate your reviews and hear on Al Kresta and the EWTN programs. I receive a boycott list of companies who give money to Planned Parenthood. One of these is Disney. I understand in your position you have to review these movies and pay to see them. But what about the Catholic viewer? I don’t go to these movies because of this. I also understand we are given little choice. I boycott Chinese goods but have to sometimes buy them because I have no choice. I would like your opinion.
Actually, I generally don’t pay to see the movies I review. As a critic, I’m invited by the studios to advance screenings. I also receive DVD screeners of many of the movies I review for DVD release.
In the case of Up, however, I cheerfully paid full price to bring my entire family to see the film after it opened, and would gladly do so again. Disney’s corporate support for Planned Parenthood would not sway me.
This may mean that a tiny fraction of our ticket money may ultimately become a tiny bit of the money Disney contributes to Planned Parenthood. However, the much larger and more immediate effect of buying those tickets is to add to the success of a morally and culturally deserving family film, as well as the success of Pixar, far and away the most consistent force for morally and culturally deserving family entertainment in Hollywood. (For what it’s worth, Pete Docter, the director of Up, is a professing Christian. So, apparently, is Andrew Stanton, director of WALL-E.)
The more successful a wholesome movie like Up is, the more people it will reach both in theatrical release and on DVD, and the more people will benefit from its moral and artistic excellence. Beyond that, the more successful the filmmakers are with films like this, the more leverage and incentive they will have to keep on producing more deserving family entertainment. Not only that, their success also continues to challenge other studios, on the basis of self-interest if nothing else, to seek to win the same audiences with similarly deserving content.
Not incidentally, we also help to pay the salaries of many hard-working people, from the employees at the local cineplex to all the people who worked on the film. Most of all, we enrich our lives and the lives of our children.
On the whole then, society is much more benefited than harmed by people buying tickets to deserving movies like Up. As regards boycotting, I think that a boycott is most effective in the case of a corporation where consumers have the choice of patronizing competitors offering more or less comparable goods and services. Movies are all so different from each other that I think the best way to impact the culture is to support good movies and avoid bad movies, regardless who makes them.
All acts have some negative effects if you follow them far enough. You can boycott Disney if you want to, but consider that half the products in your house probably advertise on ABC, which means at least some of your money goes to Disney anyway! That’s a very remote effect, though, compared to the more immediate positive benefit your purchase represents both to you, the manufacturer and the retailer. Thus, sound moral theology permits such purchases.
Link To This Item >
Where’s your list of the most spiritually significant movies? Loved it.
I’m not completely sure which list you’re referring to. You could mean:
Link To This Item >
My gosh, do you have any idea how amazing I feel finding this site? As a Catholic rediscovering her faith and using the internet to reconnect with many Catholics, I’ve come across many people who are very intolerant of “frivolous” art. As an artist myself, I just love a good piece of fiction, and felt so torn at such comments. I thought for sure my enjoyment of a compelling film was going to send me to hell! But reading through your site has been a wonderful eye-opener!
I’ve been giving extra thought to what I view since coming back to the Church, and have trimmed several unruly branches from my film collection, and your reviews are good to use as a guideline, even if I’m somewhat surprised! (Happy Feet, for example. It makes me overbubbly with cuteness and joy to watch)
My question lies with movies given a minus-4 in morality. If labeled minus-4, does it make the film morally wrong to watch? Does it put it on the list of films that cross the line and shouldn’t be viewed? For example, I greatly enjoy the film V for Vendetta, despite its many flaws, because I found the characters very powerful and moving, and loved trying to get into their heads, find their motivation, feel what they were feeling. And I saw that on artistic merit, you rated it highly. But, does being given such a morally inept show make it morally wrong to have enjoyed it? Such as when the USCCBA gives a film an O rating? (I’ve been told that films rated O shouldn’t be seen because we’d be supporting the making of a corrupt film).
I’m gratified that you’ve found my work helpful, and doubly so that it’s been a part of your reappropriation of your faith.
The moral-spiritual ratings, like the other ratings, are only a quick index of my opinion, representing my response to the film in question. The ratings are less important than the point of view and the arguments presented in the review itself. Even then, the point of view and the arguments of the review represents my opinion and my response to the film. Other people may have different responses which may be equally valid.
That’s not to say that different responses are always equally good, or that none are more adequate or insightful than another. But I don’t automatically assume that my response is better than a reader’s response; the reverse may easily be the case. And it’s not always a matter of better or worse. Tastes differ from one person to another, and often vary with age, experience, state in life and other circumstances. My taste in movies today is different from ten years ago when I started Decent Films, and certainly from 20 years ago. I don’t necessarily decry my 20-year-old taste, but I write as the man I am, even if my experience of the man I was broadens my perspective. Of course, my perspective is necessarily limited by other experiences I haven’t had, if you follow me.
Continue Reading This Item >
I was wondering if you could clear up something that has been weighing on my mind heavily for some time now. In an online discussion a while back, a woman stated that if we want to go to Heaven, we listen to the saints, and if we want to go to hell, we listen to anyone else. She went on to say that since saints didn’t watch movies, neither should we, because we will go to hell. This is the same woman who said no one under the age of thirty should be allowed to read the Song of Songs, but I can’t get her words out of my head.
Here is what to say when you hear her words in your head. First of all, the correct dictum is not “If we want to go to Heaven, we listen to the saints.” The saints themselves are the first to tell us that the correct dictum is: “If we want to go to Heaven, we listen to the Church.”
For nearly a century the Church has proclaimed that cinema, like all forms of art and communication, is a gift: one that can be used properly to great advantage, or improperly to great harm. Popes Pius XI and Pius XII, the Vatican II decree Inter Mirifica and the pastoral instruction Communio et Progressio have all addressed the relevant moral issues.
Pope Pius XII’s addresses on the Ideal Film begins with open admiration for the technical and artistic achievements of just a few decades, highlighting the cinema’s capacity to bring viewers to imaginary worlds and distant realities. “Most noble” in itself, the Holy Father declared, cinema is at once “so apt to uplift or degrade men, and so quick to produce good or spread evil.”
While there is certainly a clear element of caution in the Church’s teaching, absolutely nothing justifies the conclusion that the Church wishes Catholics to abstain entirely from movies, and that if we do not we will go to hell. Catholic moral theology absolutely will not sustain this thesis.
Continue Reading This Item >
I’ve just found out that any form of willed sexual arousal outside of marriage is a grave sin. I have been a Catholic all of my 36 years and counting and I’ve never been informed. I was aghast at first and questioned the truth of it but after a little research it seems it’s true.
So, my question is whether this moves the goalposts regarding what is acceptable to watch in a movie. For example I would have have enjoyed watching a passionate kiss between unmarried men and women but would have averted my eyes at anything more explicit but now the fact that French kissing, snogging et al are acts of grave immorality for non-married Catholics I conclude I will have to avert my eyes there too.
Church teaching in numerous documents, notably including Inter Mirifica, the Vatican II decree on the media of social communications, talk about the need for restraint in the depiction of matters “which deserve reverent handling or which, given the baneful effect of original sin in men, could quite readily arouse base desires in them.” This certainly includes depictions of sensuality and sexuality. Restraint does not necessarily mean total avoidance, but it does mean a prudent attempt to avoid near occasions of sin.
To an extent, the requirements of prudence are relative to the condition of the individual. Having been both a teenaged boy and a 40-year-old married man, I can confidently say that what is a near occasion of sin for one is not necessarily the same as for the other. However, there are general principles that apply for everyone or nearly everyone.
Some baselines: On the one hand, it is certainly sinful to watch or use any presentation with the aim or intention of becoming aroused. On the other hand, merely becoming aroused while watching a particular presentation is not necessarily sinful, nor does it necessarily mean that that presentation is sinful to watch. Arousal is affected by the will but is significantly involuntary. One must not recklessly expose oneself to material that is clearly intended to arouse. However, the mere possibility that one may be aroused by a particular presentation is not necessarily an iron-clad reason to avoid it.
Continue Reading This Item >