Can I get a witness from the congre ... er ... parish!!!!

Seriously bud, I wish I’d written that.

While I’d probably be looser than you about content and its overall role in a work, I’d agree as a general rule that Hollywood mostly produces junk and/or immorality. But to dismiss an art-form simpliciter is Puritan and thus profoundly un-Catholic. The Church has never been iconoclastic or anti-represenetational (OK OK, St. Augustine said a few things about his youth at the theater that he applied to theater per se). If being and/or the world is good, then a thing produced by the world has to be good, at least in principle if not always in practice, right?

It is pretty clear that the entire Church is not called to the monastic life - which means we are going to be in the world. Movies play a role in how the world is perceived. Movies respond to the world, pick something and emphasize that aspect, and impact how people view the world.On the other hand, people who view the world and comment on what they see impact what and how movies are made. If devout Christians simply forgo movies, then there will be no pressure on Hollywood to make decent films, there will be no counterbalance to the lowest common denominator. It’s pretty difficult to evangelize from a cave.

I am fond of pointing out that Frank Capra was Catholic, John Ford, Francis Ford Coppola, Martin Scorcese, Alfred Hitchcock - all were Catholic. There is a Catholic world view that does in fact shine forth in their greatest films, and is what makes their films so accessible and so watchable.

We need more of that kind of film making, and those kinds of film makers need Catholic audiences.

“Pope Benedict isn’t beyond criticism, but I do have great confidence in most of what he writes.”

I was with you until I read that sentence. Of course the Pope isn’t above criticism, the MSM has more than demonstrated that fact recently. But I’d respectfully suggest that he has forgotten more than you or I will ever know, Steve, so I’d be careful about setting myself up to judge him or his writings.

Tired of Catholics extolling the virtues of Hollywood, everything from Star Wars to Iron Man are anti-christian. Look beyond the surface, sociopaths and psychopaths as Protagonists are now the norm.

I just watched “Fireproof” lastnight.  That movie drove home the Christian principles of fighting to save your marriage in a much more compelling and dramatic way than say a homily or lecture ever could. 
    Isn’t that what good entertainment is supposed to do - inspire, cause us to reflect, stir us to action, etc.  It’s supposed to move and touch us.
    But, there is A LOT of garbage out there.  We don’t want to be “moved” in that direction.  Hollywood is motivated by one thing, money.  What does well at the box office, is what we are going to be seeing more of.  Skip the garbage, but make a point of supporting the wholesome entertainment when it does come.

Quite some time ago I started saying this simple daily prayer: “Please God grant that I may never find any desire for those things which lead me away from You. Grant that I may only find pleasure in that which draws me closer to You.” I haven’t been to the theater in years and I very rarely watch television. I don’t say this with any smugness, rather with with great appreciation and joy, as God has filled the void with better things. Try saying this prayer for a few months and see where it leads you - you’ll be delighted. (When’s the last time you were delighted - not entertained, but delighted! - by a movie or T.V. show?)

“I was with you until I read that sentence. Of course the Pope isn’t above criticism, the MSM has more than demonstrated that fact recently. But I’d respectfully suggest that he has forgotten more than you or I will ever know, Steve, so I’d be careful about setting myself up to judge him or his writings.”
 
I’m not sure yet that we disagree. I doubt if anyone has more respect for B16’s erudition than I, and “careful” is definitely a good word in this context—I wouldn’t presume to disagree casually or incautiously with anything Benedict wrote. But I don’t think it’s automatically imprudent or foolhardy ever to presume to disagree with something Benedict wrote.
 
Consider that B16 himself wrote “Everyone is free to disagree with me” in his intro to Jesus of Nazareth. If you don’t disagree with THAT :) then you must admit that it can be okay sometimes to disagree with something B16 has written. (And if you DO disagree, then you’ve got a logical conundrum on your hands.)

I just wanted to encourage you. I have 4 sons. My entire family loves a good movie and I have always used your review to sort the good from the bad and to point out the little down fall.I have learned long ago to not worry about the few that want to throw the baby with the bath water. there are a lot of baby’s out there and you can catch them, in cheap theaters for 20 bucks on a Sunday afternoon for the whole family.

“When’s the last time you were delighted - not entertained, but delighted! - by a movie or T.V. show?”
 
Now that’s a challenge I’m happy to take up.
 
The last time was about two weeks ago. I was utterly delighted, enchanted and overjoyed by Babies. And if you see it, I bet you’ll be delighted too.
 
Other movies that have lately delighted me, and/or variously edified, thrilled, dazzled and moved me, include Bright Star, Ponyo, Passing Strange, Summer Hours, The 13th Day and Up. At least some of these I suspect might delight you as well, while some of them (one in particular I feel very confident) might not. That is where discernment and prudential judgment come in.
 
Do you disagree in principle with Communio et Progressio that there are “many films” that “deserve everyone’s praise and support”?

Linda S, thank you and bless you and your family.

Mary,
I was “not entertained, but delighted” by Fireproof, Facing the Giants, Bella, Lord of the Rings, Romero, to name just the first 5 to pop in my head.

I have always found the Catholic Church to give me a balanced approach to raising our family of 10.  Although we have never had a TV set, we have always sought to find a way to present high quality movies or films to our children.  At one point, before videos or movie discs,we rented “Wind in the Willows” slide show and projector nearly every other month! Some of the lines from that provide family tag lines even now 30 years later, and, as an artist, I still remember many of those images.  We have moved with the times and now own both VHS and DVD players. Our children are basically grown and out of the house now, and have all become moral, God-fearing adults.
The one essential thing we taught them that helped them through the years when they were going out with friends to view movies that they were choosing, was to walk out of ones that endangered purity.  Anytime a movie came in to our house that had bad language or impure scenes—it went right back and a new one was chosen. Once it happened 3 times! Now, as adults we fast forward, or hit the silencer, if it only happens once or twice.  More than that, it’s out of the house!  With books, they go “under the Statue of Our Lady” until they can be returned to the library, mostly so no other child will pick it up by mistake. One time a set of inappropriate music tapes ended up “in front of Mary”.
As parents, we need to teach our children how to navigate the real world. It’s worked for us!

will

Hey how about a link to the ncregister’s list of the top 100 pro Catholic movies to top it all off?

http://www.ncregister.com/info/top_100_pro_catholic_movies/

The problem is that someone has to watch a movie, at least part-way, in order to discern whether or not it is worth watching. That part-way viewing can sometimes be bad enough to detrimentally affect a soul for a long time. I can’t tell you how many stories I have heard of boys and young men who have been set on a path of addiction to pornography because they saw one bad picture by accident or through another’s intervention. Films are much more influential than simple pictures. Obviously, not all films have content that is going to lead a soul down a path toward perdition, but unless one is really, really certain about a film, sometimes it may not be worth the risk.

I find what is lacking in people who refuse to go to the movies on the basis of faith is a lack of recognition that movies with ambivalent (or even out and out evil) protaganists can still be vehicles of faith. 

This is all part of the evangelical strain of the Church which rejects critical thinking and discernment and depends merely on dogma (small d) to sustain them in life.

I forgot to mention that I use Steven Graydanus’s views and those in the local Catholic paper to pick up new ideas for films. I am starting to purchase as Christmas and Easter presents those films that are deemed “classics” like “Up”.  Thank you Steven for taking the time to help those of us out there who are navigating the murky shoals of the modern culture searching for the oysters with pearls.

Agree, agree, agree!  Our family has been truly uplifted by many of the movies you (and other trusted sources) have recommended.  Movies can be a wonderful addition, albiet small, to a family by way of education and enjoyment.  Not every individual or family will find movies a support to their vocation but some will.  Our Church calls us to be wise in all we do and discern with prudence.  I am grateful for your ministry that allows us to do just that in regard to movies.  Through you, we have found movies that help underscore a lesson we want our children to learn (13th Day), information to help lead others away from bad movies (DaVinci Code) and towards others (Bella) and many movies that just made us joyful (Up).  In our family, we know but movies are not essential to our holiness but can often be a support to developing it and reinforcing it.

I can no longer go to movies because of my husband’s health.  However - as much as I have enjoyed good movies in the past, I laud the response to the entertainment industry made by many of my young friends.  They provide their own entertainment!  Games, poetry and musical instruments and singing are a part of their entertainment diet.  G. K. Chesterton once commented:  “Anything worth doing is worth doing badly.”
He was not encouraging professionals to get sloppy; rather, he was encouraging amateurs to do things for the love of doing them.  When I was young, we enjoyed sing-alongs.  Today, we put a cd in the boom box.  We are passive.  Whenever my grand children visit from out of town, we have an “entertainment” and, oh, it is such fun!

God bless us all, each and every one, as Tiny Tim would say.

Greydanus,

I like the content of what you write, and I even more admire why you do it.  That said, I think it is rather foolish to query “What movie is so artistically or morally impeccable that it is beyond criticism?,” largely because artistic and moral criticism should be vigorously distinguished, and especially by critics who claim to do be able to do both.  As someone with a BA in film, I would be hard-pressed to find many things I like artistically about some of the hokey saint movies I’ve seen, but these hokier ones are often - if not always - beyond moral reproach.  Your article above and the comments that prompted it demonstrate the need for an authentic philosophy of film - something along the lines of Aristotle’s Poetics crossed with Plato’s Cave from Book VII of the Republic.  It simply cannot be denied that film has an effect on human consciousness that is unprecedented among the arts in human history (or that Lenin and Goebbels, among others, both recognized that effect and exploited it).  Therefore, an authentic understanding of the nature of the art - particularly, the abstract images and ideas that present an alternative reality and willy-nilly embed themselves in the moviegoer’s consciousness - is needed to help flesh out the moral consequences of watching movies.  I hope that is the direction in which you are taking your writing endeavors, as I will be one of the first to buy a copy of such a book.

As an English teacher for a Catholic school, I encounter a 1 out of 100 case where parents object to a particular book.  Often it’s that adultery is present in The Scarlet Letter (where it’s not shown, and all we witness are the long, hurtful consequences of it), or witchcraft in Macbeth, etc.  If told that adultery also exists in the Bible, in a much more sensual way in David and Bethsheba, and with Saul, we witness an actual séance, parents may even say, “Well, we don’t let them read certain parts of the Bible either,” which I don’t necessarily disagree with, but we are talking about seventeen year olds in their junior year of high school. 
I’ve heard a convincing case made that those with a zero policy stance toward any sin in media are usually those who in their youth made impure choices themselves, or maybe who continue to be tempted.  I appreciate this personal code for themselves (they are responsible for their souls to God), but I think they do need to be checked when attempting to transform a personal necessity into a universal doctrine.  I’m sympathetic with acquaintances who are recovering alcoholics that they cannot take a glass of wine, regardless of how celebratory the situation, but if they could not watch, read, or be in the presence of anyone who is drinking, and tried to make some argument that Christ was a teetotaler, they’d be in a bad place.
Christ had dinner with prostitutes, and said he came to heal sinners, and if we’re honest, we’ll realize that’s not some minority group, but all of us.  Cardinal Newman said you cannot have a pure literature of impure man, and the same could be said of all art.  What you will have constructed but will be false, because it conceals the truth.  We are sinners and need to learn how to work through sin, not be always running from it.  Cardinal Newman was convinced that these families who promote a policy of sheltering will find their children completely unprepared when those parents are gone and the children have to confront sin in all of its alluring forms for the very first time on their own.  Instead of having the tools to be able to recognize why sin is bad and what can be done about it (Scarlet Letter), they will be on their own and have to make things up on the fly.
One of my favorite passages in the Bible is one which reads, in some translations, that our Lord was upset that the disciples did not understand his “figure of speech.”  If anyone remembers their poetry, they’ll remember that poetry is the entire study of the figure of speech.  Christ was a poet and a storyteller – a lover of beauty.  His stories were not pure themselves, but full of unjust judges, sons who debauched themselves with loose women, and conniving servants.  I don’t regard a love of literature or story, in movie form for instance, or beauty as optional, but a necessity if we want to understand and model ourselves after Christ.

“I like the content of what you write, and I even more admire why you do it.  That said, I think it is rather foolish to query “What movie is so artistically or morally impeccable that it is beyond criticism?,” largely because artistic and moral criticism should be vigorously distinguished, and especially by critics who claim to do be able to do both.”
 
I’m not sure I follow this. How does my question imply a failure to distinguish what in fact I distinguish every time I assign separate artistic-entertainment and moral-spiritual ratings to a film?
 
“As someone with a BA in film, I would be hard-pressed to find many things I like artistically about some of the hokey saint movies I’ve seen, but these hokier ones are often - if not always - beyond moral reproach.”
 
“Beyond moral reproach,” possibly; beyond moral criticism, not necessarily. Take the movie to serious devotees of the saint in question, and you will often be surprised at the criticisms, moral and otherwise, that they come up with. For instance, if a film fictionalizes the life of a saint and so obscures some aspect of that saint’s life that directly relates to the saint’s heroic example, isn’t that potentially a moral issue?
 
“Your article above and the comments that prompted it demonstrate the need for an authentic philosophy of film - something along the lines of Aristotle’s Poetics crossed with Plato’s Cave from Book VII of the Republic.”
 
There have been attempts. Believe it or not, the Production Code (often misleadingly called the Hayes Code, and not to be confused with the earlier “Don’ts and Be Carefuls”), written by “Hollywood priest” Fr. Daniel Lord and Catholic layman Martin Quigley, was an effort in that direction. Whatever philosophical thoughts I have on the subject are elementary and at the level of the arts in general … I’m not ready to tackle a book on the subject. Maybe in another ten or twenty years. :)

Wake up Catholics, America is the splinter in your mind driving from left to right instead of to the Eucharist.

Lank, you’ve shot your wad. I thank you for your earlier comment and for voicing your opinion. If you have nothing further to add except pious boilerplate that could be appended to any article on this website, please take it somewhere else.

Note: I’ve appended a couple of “further reading” links to the original blog post.

Your an idiot and obviously not a Catholic.

Lank, I’m tempted to take down your comment for inexcusable rudeness. But I think it provides a helpful commentary on your previous posts. God bless you.

The Fraternity of St Genesius does a regular monthly film night in Dublin, Ireland info@stgenesius.com

Who can argue against the fact that if a movie is a good spiritual movie, one that leads people closer to Christ than it would be OK and beneficial to watch. The problem obviously comes in when the movie leads people away from Christ. knowing however that the devil is crafty he does certain things in this world to lead people astray. One of those things he does in my opinion is to inspire people to make movies that may on one level seem moral, but that on another level the underlying message is one that may make the Church look bad or may make religion or God look bad.

Another thing the devil does is play on our weaknesses. The devil realizes that we desire entertainment and amusement. we has human beings have an ability to be entertained and amused through the emotions God gave us. That ability to be entertained those emotional responses were given to us By God for a reason. Those emotional responses are given to us to bring us closer to God. To bring us into union with God. St. John of The Cross says the affection and attachment which a soul has for creatures renders the soul like to these creatures; and the greater is its affection the closer is its equality and likeness between them; for love creates a likeness between that which loves and that which is loved. Our desire to be entertained and amused is a response to something we like or on a deeper sense is a response that should be given to things we love or things we should have our hearts attached to for we than become like those things. If we seek entertainment simply for the sake of being entertained than we run a risk of a sort of egoism or narcissism. We are simply looking to be entertained to gratify our pleasure appetite rather than use that entertainment as a tool to bring us closer to God. The devil once again realizes our need or as I have heard it said before our mad search for amusement and entertainment. He than uses the film industry to make more and more creative entertainment so we feed our narcissistic tendencies and at the same time threads in immoral behavior knowing that we cannot resist the entertainment because we have become addicted to it. In my opinion it is very important for good people who want to follow God to realize this weakness and desire for entertainment in such a way. Rather the entertainment or amusement should be tied to good wholesome Catholic themes in order that the emotions which go along with this entertainment bond us to God for what we end up showing affection for in the realm of being amused is something that is Godly. We must also be careful not to use entertainment than as an end in itself. We must realize entertainment is only a means to an end and that end is to bring us closer to Union with Go not to simply experience the entertainment or amusement itself.

There were wonderful children’s radio programs called “Let’s Pretend” in the 1930s.  I don’t remember the stories, mostly classic adventures, as much as the actors’ voices and the background music which was from popular classics.  We kids used to discuss the stories later; and looking back, it’s obvious that the programs stretched our imaginations more than we realized.  Where are the creative artists of film and TV who have the skills of the producers of those radio shows?

Wow!  Some of these comments are unreal.  Don’t people understand, nuance, subtlety, or even art for that matter?  Is name calling Catholic?

Of course name-calling is just adolescent nannabooboo behavior. NCR, by virtue of the fact that its a big target, is a great place for adolescents (who are usually supposedly ‘grownups’) to post their hostilities toward the Roman Catholic Church. Just ask Our Lady to bless them & help them…might be the only person who has ever prayed to Her for them ;^)

Insults and personal attacks will be removed. I have emailed the individual whose comments have been removed; if he is using a real email address, he can respond as he considers appropriate. For those who may have received emails from his comments, I apologize. If it persists, I will look into IP blocking and other expedients as necessary.

“If we seek entertainment simply for the sake of being entertained than we run a risk of a sort of egoism or narcissism. We are simply looking to be entertained to gratify our pleasure appetite rather than use that entertainment as a tool to bring us closer to God.”
 
I’m not sure I necessarily disagree, or at least I would express a converging opinion, but I think I would express it differently. I would begin with St. Paul who says “Whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all for the glory of God.” To do all for the glory of God is a habitual disposition, but obviously does not consciously occupy our attention continuously. I don’t necessarily think “Here I am taking out the garbage for God’s glory” or “Here I am driving to work for God’s glory.” Nor, to pick more pleasant examples, do I necessarily think “Time to read to my children for God’s glory” or “Time to kiss my wife for God’s glory.”
 
Taking out the garbage or reading to my children are occasions of glorifying God, but I wouldn’t call them “tools” to bring us closer to God. Nor would I say that reading a book to myself, or watching a movie with my family or alone, are “tools” for coming closer to God. I would say that God is glorified when his creative intention for his creatures is fulfilled, when his creatures fulfill the intention he had in creating them.
 
For example, the sun and the stars glorify God by doing what he created them to do, by shining. Animals glorify God according to their nature, from the aerial acrobatics of a barn swallow to the architectural industry of paper wasps, from the predatory power of an orca to the parental sacrifices of an Emperor penguin. Angels, on the other hand, glorify God in accordance with their nature of pure intellect, always eternally praising God and consciously devoted to his service.
 
We human beings are neither animals nor angels. Unlike animals, we are called to glorify God in a way that is conscious and free, through our response to his grace; but unlike angels, we are called to do so according to our mode of incarnate existence and engagement with the human world.
 
Thus, while we are called to bring, for example, the pleasure of eating food (which we share with the animals) into the realm of the personal and the spiritual (through gratitude as well as by our willingness to regulate and abstain from those goods as appropriate), it remains the case that God is glorified by our simple bodily enjoyment of the faculty of taste that he has given us. God is glorified even when a baby enjoys its first taste of mother’s milk. It doesn’t stop there, of course, but that element is never abolished.
 
In the same way, God has created us human beings as cultural, aesthetic and imaginative beings, beings who enjoy telling and enjoying stories, creating and appreciating images, acting out and witnessing dramas, and so forth. God created us for these things just as he created the sun for shining, and he is glorified by our participation in and enjoyment of this side of our nature just as he is glorified by the shining of the sun.
 
Of course our freedom allows us to misuse these faculties, to exercise them without thanksgiving or a habitual disposition of glorifying God in all we do. That danger is always present in all areas of life, from eating and drinking to playing with the kids to the 9 to 5 grind. More positively, this “danger” is also an opportunity, since there is no area of life isolated from our vocation to glorify God, no human occupation that can’t be sanctified through thanksgiving, love of God and the exercise of the virtues.
 
The same positives and negatives apply to entertainment and cultural pursuits, from reading books to watching movies or television to surfing the Internet. I see no particular reason to isolate entertainment and cultural pursuits as presenting special issues different from the rest of human life, nor to isolate certain forms of entertainment or cultural pursuits (e.g., movies) from others (e.g., books).

“If I insisted on a perfect church, perfect friends, perfect food and so on—I would die friendless, unchurched and quickly.”
ROFL!!!
P.S. I absolutely agree!

I appreciate what Steve does as it does help us out tremendously.
Saying that, the decision on whether to watch a movie, is ultimately left up to the parents prudential judgment. 
I find TV (prime time) harder to watch than movies (some).
I also appreciate his rating and reviews a lot more than USCCB.
I just finished watching AVATAR (we rented) and I have to say, they are coming a long way in animation but to me it flopped and was way too long. (In the end I was checking my watch (will it ever end?!).

“(When’s the last time you were delighted - not entertained, but delighted! - by a movie or T.V. show?) “

The Lord of the Rings
Ponyo, Totoro, Kiki, etc. any Miyazaki film
Wall-E, Up
To a degree, How to Train Your Dragon and Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs

This episode of Fullmetal Alchemist (babies, yay!): http://www4.funimation.com/video/?page=video&v=2249

The combox is lively on this one! Just wanted to add my appreciation of this article to the others. Well done!

I taught CCD for 12 years.  The most memorable year for me was the year one of my student’s mother had cancer.  I asked my students at the beginning of the year if they had any idea’s or suggestions for what they would like to help them understand their faith better.  David said “anything to do with Lord of the Rings.”

So as we worked through our workbook, whenever we had a lesson on fidelity, integrity, perseverance, divine providence, etc, I would bring the Lord of the Rings movies.  We would watch the scene, and then talk about the message.

I had more students attend regularly that year than any other.  They really connected to the message.

David’s mother passed away that year, and I know that his better understanding of his faith helped him to personally get through his heartbreak.

The movie “Into Great Silence” delighted me, I’d like to add.

Just this weekend, my wife watched “Juno”.  Pleasantly surprised, especially with the script and refreshingly non-cardboard cutout stock run of the mill caricature characterizations.

+1 for the post, though I was shocked (shocked!) to learn that the issue of medium-bashing purityrannical Catholics was increasing, rather than decreasing (I guess the pendulum really does swing both ways).

I can’t say I’ve been delignted by too many awesome movies lately (aside from “Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs” and anything made by Pixar), but my wife and I are keeping a running list of TV series we need to buy on DVD (or BluRay or whatever they have in the future…) for our sons to watch when they’re older: “Supernatural” just moved to the top of that list for it’s excellent season finale last week (where the power of a brother’s love and a 1967 Impala triumph over the Devil… awesome).

Over the last two seasons, the stories, characters, acting, and dialog on that show has really shone and, yes, I was delighted more than once by the last few episodes.

I think the wrong question is being asked.

It’s not : “Are movies bad for us?”.

It’s “Are movies bad for them - the people making them?”

The very first question deals with a movie as if it were an abstraction - it “happens” on screen. Something remote - disembodied - something “out there”.

The second question asks what happens to the real people who had to “perform” the actions we see.

For instance: If sensuality, sexuality or nudity was “required” does it even matter what subjective merit a scene might have?

God forbid that we should pay someone’s wife, daughter, husband, child to commit serious sin to “entertain” us. For Christ’s sake he or she is child of God!

While we may delight ourselves in chin-pulling exercises of fine distinction a real soul earns teeters on hell right in front of our very eyes.

How can we just sit back and “watch”?
That’s what Pagan Rome did - watch.

Steven I do agree with your premise that throwing out the baby with the bathwater is not quite “Catholic”. Furthermore I do not believe in the prideful temptation of “separatism”. However if one were to find fault with me it would be this -  I do not believe this culture can be rescued by natural means. We are nearing the end of an age. While the Vatican documents aspire to the best in our natures it seems a bit like whistling in the dark. We have have plenty of documents. Talk talk and more talk.

Its a lost cause - nevertheless one that should rightly endear itself to us in the rank and file :)

Thank you very much for your article, Steve. The puritanism of some Catholics has utterly puzzled me for a long time, it’s an attitude that I find very counter-productive for our culture and even harmful for themselves in some cases (like the tendency to look down on others for enjoying a particular movie they themselves find objectionable without having actually seen it.

Keep up the good work, I find your reviews very helpful and inspiring. I don’t always agree with them (case in point, the “Pride and Prejudice” movie, with its utter contempt for the original Jane Austen work) but I appreciate them all the same. :) God bless you!

FWIW, with respect to what has become the “delight” meme, allow me to (hopefully) deflate what may have become an undue amount of pressure on the original commenter’s well-meaning query by noting that “delight” is an interesting criterion but hardly a decisive one.
 
Again I repair to St. Paul’s dictum, “Whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all for the glory of God.” I enjoyed my breakfast this morning and it was good for me, but I wouldn’t say I was delighted by it. Again, to pick another activity cited in my previous comment, I read aloud to my children every day—an activity that is enjoyed by us all, and salutary for our family life and hopefully for my children’s intellectual and personal development and, please God, for all of our souls. Would I necessarily say I am delighted, each and every evening, by this activity? Sometimes, certainly, but always, of course not, and I never expected to be. That’s not the point.
 
Over the past several months my kids and I have watched a number of episodes of Disney’s “Zorro” series and the late, lamented “Spectacular Spider-Man” series. Were we delighted? Sometimes yes; other times no. Almost always we enjoyed them. A few episodes were kind of disappointing. In any case, it was fun to watch them together. Do I consider the lack of ever-present delight an indication that the time was wasted? No, not at all.
 
@Victor Victor: With respect to the waxing or waning of “no movies please” Catholic piety, I advance no thesis. I note the phenomenon, that’s all.
 
@thinkabootit (Canadian much? :) ): You raise some valid concerns. I agree that the moral implications of a given film for the filmmakers themselves is an issue with significant implications with respect to the “moral watchability” of the film. I’ve discussed that issue in the past and will discuss it again, but I can’t do all things in one blog post (this one’s already too long!).
 
FWIW, I would agree with Victor Morton’s opening comment that “a general rule that Hollywood mostly produces junk and/or immorality,” but as other commenters have ably attested and as can be seen merely by scanning up and down this combox, it is not merely whistling in the dark to affirm that there are movies out there worth celebrating too. Films continue to be made that “deserve everyone’s praise and support,” and devout Catholics are finding them.

Cool!!!! Steven Greydanus responded to my post!

No I am not a Canuck - actually Southsidechicago- just messing with yer head.

Whaddaya mean you cant address all things in this post? You mean I worked up a head of steam for nothing?!? ;)

I am seriously beginning to doubt Teh Dark Lords Danus Grey and M’arkshea leadership. Is anyone awake in the Dark Tower?

Steve, I see nothing to apologize for in the “delight” thread, since God Himself says “It is my delight to be with the children of men.” I would agree there are certainly variations in the levels of delight.  But for me, I am delighted when I am engaging in any pursuit that connects me in any healthy, wholesome way with myself, others, or God.  Often, those activities connect on all three levels.  As does recreation, or re-creation, which is modeled by God Himself on the 7th day.  Apparently, we are supposed to have lots of fun here, amid the usual sorrows, sins, and failures of everyday life.  I say, bring it on!!!

No apologies, Susan M! Just an acknowledgment that what is wholesome and enjoyable doesn’t have to involve paroxysms of delight … and that’s okay too.

I totally agree with the “enjoy” vs. “delight” distinction. There are plenty of shows we enjoy (“White Collar,” “Chuck”) but very few go the extra mile into deliciousness territory (along with “Supernatural”, I think the new season of “Doctor Who” qualifies, now that they have a Scotsman instead of an Atheist for a showrunner).

@Steve—How come you never give any props to “Batman: The Brave and the Bold”? IMHO, it’s by far the most fun superhero cartoon to come out in ages. Is the lack of attention just the result of a strong pro-Marvel bias?

Let me point out one other thing though that makes me recoil at “delight” and similar terms—the way they infantilize motion pictures as an art form.

The most important works of art are often not “delightful” in any but the most absurdly bend-over-backwards sense. Who would call Kafka or Dostoevsky or Sophocles or the Shakespearean tragedies “delightful”? Mutatis mutandis, I wish we had less dismissal of movies that, while not immoral, are deeply and seriously about dark or unpleasant subjects, or provoke reactions other than joy—pity, terror, etc.

@Other Victor: I think we may mean very different things by “delight” or at least its function in entertainment. For me (at leats) the best moments of delight come not from watching puppies frolic, but from the resolution of some great moment of tension (or terror, or pity, or disgust).

For example, in “Army of Darkness” as the undead Deadites are storming the castle and there is virtually no hope of the medieval humans within surviving the onslaught, when Bruce Campbell crashes through the gates in a steam-powered ‘73 Olds Delta 88 and shouts “Say hello to the 21st century!” while decaptitating stop-motion skeletons left and right, THAT is a moment of pure delight. We RELISH those moments.

And of course “Army of Darkness” may not be a work of art on the order of the Theban plays, but after a hard week when I need something to recharge and renew me, I’m not going to be reaching for the Sophocles.

Pursuant to Victor Victor’s point, I’m fond of this statement from John Paul II’s 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.”
 
I would agree that such unsettling explorations can be occasions of delight. One of the films I listed as delighting me, Passing Strange, is full of disturbing incident, but I still found it delightful in the honesty of its evaluation—and rejection—of a number of possible “gospels.”
 
P.S. Victor Victor, I’m not so much a Marvel zombie as a Spider-Man geek. I am open to “Brave and the Bold,” though; I just haven’t seen it.

@SDG—It looks like “Passing Strange” will be streaming on Netflix soon, so I’ve added to my queue on that “delightful” recommendation!

One of the really cool things about “Batman: The Brave and the Bold” is the way they’ll take a handful of obscure characters from the back DC-catalog and throw them into (say) a 100-mile deathrace in tricked-out cars, or a musical (starring Neil Patrick Harris), or Aquaman’s cross-country family vacation in a Winnebago (probably the best episode of the series I’ve seen so far, “Aquaman’s Outrageous Adventure”, is a good place to start).

That’s cool, Victor—although I hasten to add that a lot of people will not find Passing Strange delightful … please check out the capsule write-up in my 2009 Year in Reviews essay before viewing!

Greydanus likes PASSING STRANGE ... and condemns BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN ... oy-yoy-yoy-yoy-yoy

Passing Strange: “laced with obscenity, profanity, perversity and more, but … also something else: one of the most philosophically and existentially searching films of the year, if not the decade … [d]efinitely not for all tastes, but a remarkable document of the quest for authenticity.”
 
Brokeback Mountain: “nothing less than an indictment not just of heterosexism but of masculinity itself, and thereby of human nature as male and female … not only post-modern and post-heroic, but post-Christian and post-human.”
 
Yep. I like Passing Strange and condemn Brokeback Mountain.

I dunno if this is the right forum, Steve, and I don’t want to hijack the thread off-topic. But I really do think you’re wrong about the Ang movie. But for the curious: here’s Steve’s review (http://www.decentfilms.com/reviews/brokebackmountain.html) and my review (http://vjmorton.wordpress.com/2005/12/19/apologia-pro-ang-lee/)

In one thought—I don’t deny that the pain of these two homosexuals significant involves social constraint and efforts to fit a role they don’t (an inarguable fact about the movie) or that the male characters are all varyingly unattractive (ditto—but then can you realistically imagine one in re this subject at that time and place). I don’t think that adds up to an indictment of masculinity per se.

If nothing else, Victor M, your comments highlight the fact that thoughtful Catholics won’t always agree on the merits of every film, any more than we necessarily agree on whether a particular law is good policy. This doesn’t mean all opinions are equally plausible, but we don’t have a magisterium of cinema any more than we have a magisterium of politics. How to apply moral norms in particular circumstances is often more a matter of prudential judgment than of fidelity or non-fidelity to church teaching.

“The same positives and negatives apply to entertainment and cultural pursuits, from reading books to watching movies or television to surfing the Internet. I see no particular reason to isolate entertainment and cultural pursuits as presenting special issues different from the rest of human life, nor to isolate certain forms of entertainment or cultural pursuits (e.g., movies) from others (e.g., books). “
I don’t think this response was meant to isolate movies and tv from other forms of human activity. The reason that TV and movies are isolated out is because that is what your article is about. But what is wrong with someone saying that TV is a waste of time or a distraction? Are we somehow destroying the church in America if certain families say, for good reason, that they don’t watch TV? Also there is a huge hole in this article. What about all those people out there, like me, who actually can not afford to go to the movies or have a TV and cable in their homes. (The only reason we have the internet is because my husband is taking online courses for work.) Is there some form of spiritual or cultural experience missing for the poor in the world because of the lack of TV and movies? Should we start having funds raised to allow the economically disadvantaged the ability to watch TV and go to the movies? Also if you want to stop the name-calling how about cooling it on calling CATHOLICS who have problems with TV and movies Puritans or Puritanical.  Also I just want to close with this “American children and adolescents spend 22 to 28 hours per week viewing television, more than any other activity except sleeping. By the age of 70 they will have spent 7 to 10 years of their lives watching TV.”—The Kaiser Family Foundation Are TV and movies so great and edifying (however you want to phrase it) that its worth that much time? Just food for thought.

“None of it is worth my or my children’s time.”

I wouldn’t be too quick to jump on this person. Judging what is worth watching as an adult is very different than doing the same for your children. Even if a movie is not offensive, contains a acceptable moral, is “delightful” to look at - I’m sorry, I have to agree with the original comment. 99% of the time there are simply better things for my children to be doing - reading, enjoying nature, singing or playing an instrument, interacting with peers and adults, etc.

I find almost all recent movies intended for children to be hyperactive, overstimulating, and very often just plain ugly. How is being enthralled by a mechanical or overly cute or computer generated character good for their imaginations when there are better things out there for them?

In the final analysis, I don’t see this as just a matter of morals, so I think the “Puritan” label is off-base here. The primary judgment shouldn’t “is it safe?” but “is it positively good - and beautiful?” How we raise our kids is a very personal thing, so it’s difficult for people to see how other people are doing it as anything other than a judgment on the decisions they have made. I can understand that. I simply have a hard time knowing that I’m giving my kids something that is, in my judgment, mediocre at best, ugly and harmful at worst.

Kimberly and Sam,
 
It may be helpful to distinguish three possible stances, not mutually exclusive:
 
1. “Many people waste a great deal of time to the detriment of more important things watching movies/TV too much and indiscriminately.”
2. “We don’t watch movies/TV because we have no interest and/or feel our time is better spent in other pursuits.”
3. “Watching movies/TV is simply a waste of time at best, if not positively harmful. Everyone would be better off not watching TV/movies.”
 
I have no problem with 1 or 2. My critique of 3 should be clear by now.
 
Indeed the world is full of people who have no access to movies/TV. The world is also full of people who have no access to books. For that matter, most people throughout history have been illiterate. It is also true that a lot of people who do have access to books waste a lot of time reading trash. None of this constitutes a general argument against books or reading.
 
I agree, and have often said, that watching movies, like anything else, needs moderation. In this combox I have referred to sanctifying all human occupations through the exercise of the virtues, including moderation.
 
I’ve read possibly thousands of children’s books and seen at least hundreds of children’s films. I would consider the majority of both to be a waste of my children’s time. I definitely want to expose my children to good examples of both worlds. Good films, like good books, are beautiful, ennobling, and enduring.
 
I know people who don’t like to read, and people who don’t like to watch movies. I know families whose lives revolve around sports. We happen not to be a sports family. For some families, that would be tantamount to heresy. You’d think we were child abusers.
 
I’m not anti-sports. I recognize that sports are a positive good in the lives of many families. They can also become intrusive and excessive (e.g., games scheduled on Sunday mornings and late on schoolnights, etc.). But abusus non tollit usam. I would never say “Sports aren’t worth my or my children’s time.”  I would simply say we’re not a sports family.
 
My burden here is simply to raise people’s awareness that there are in fact “many films” that “deserve everyone’s praise and support,” as opposed to our dismissive disregard. I have no brief regarding anyone’s personal decision to make movies a part of their family life or not.

I guess my position lies somewhere between 2 and 3. I tend to think that people would be better off not watching TV and movies, just as someone whose family has benefited greatly from sports might encourage (or perhaps over-encourage?) his friends to get involved. But don’t worry, I don’t think that people are ruining their children by the prudent use of TV or movies.

I appreciate your arguments in the abstract. However, the argument often goes the other way. I mean that I have been faced with what Kimberly mentions - that somehow my kids are missing something if they do not have regular access to the Internet (with “filters” of course) or that latest “wholesome” movie for kids (“your kids can’t live in a bubble, you know!”) I dispute that. (I’m not saying that you, Stephen Greydanus, are making these arguments.)

I also think that the criteria for judging movies that I see so often - it’s “safe!” - it *doesn’t* contain sex or violence! - is woefully inadequate. Is any food acceptable for my kids as long as it is not poisonous?

Like you I want to see positive artistic and moral value in movies. But I find this to be extremely rare, in part (in my opinion) on account of the medium itself. The visual and sensual aspects of a film, especially those with cgi and other overblown effects, can be overwhelming for children (as well as for adults, for that matter). I find that interactive play, reading, exploring nature, singing, etc. is more attuned to the proper pace of their imaginations and emotions.

My wife and I have enjoyed some good movies together, but so often we end up asking ourselves - couldn’t we have spent out time better?

My wife and I have enjoyed some good movies together, but so often we end up asking ourselves - couldn’t we have spent out time better?

Of what human activity could that not be said?

True, Mr. Morton - though I can’t say I’ve ever regretted a candlelit dinner with my wife . . . . :)

So then, why cite it against movies (or TV or gardening or reading 19th century French novels or training jujitsu or ... well ... anything else other than [maybe] going to Mass)?

“unchurched”  I like your diction.

Ah, so that’s the answer Victor. Everyone destroy your hobbies! Be it movies, tv, reading, writing, games. Since it’s all quasi-relativism anyways. I’m being partial sarcastic but you’re bizarre defense on Mr. Shea’s blog Steven leaves much to be desired. I can partially understand though. You are the movie reviewer on this site and others and need to keep your job. So, movies need to stay in relevant no matter the cost. If you really want to be relevant you should start reviewing video games. They’ll be taking over everything soon anyways.

Wow. Just ... wow. Eli, it looks like you and I have something in common. Neither of us has the slightest insight into the other’s psychology or motivations. If (for reasons unknown to me) it pleases you to think or to suggest otherwise, though, knock yourself out.

Motivations? You’re a film reviewer defending film. It doesn’t get any easier than that. Outside of that I know nothing about you. I never claimed otherwise. I don’t even necessarily disagree with what you have to say in a way. I am worried as the “church” in general lets slide more worldly ideas in. It seems like some kind of appeasement so we don’t appear backwards. On the other hand the arts can be used to bring glory to God. They can also get us to think about things we normally wouldn’t have. I wonder though where exactly will it end?

“Motivations? You’re a film reviewer defending film. It doesn’t get any easier than that. “
 
There’s a correlation there, all right. Do you know what they say about correlation and causation?

Correlation does not imply causation. The point remains though you come out as the official ncregister film reviewer and you come out with this piece. You are also very quick on the defense. Why did you really write this piece?

Anyone else notice the increase in the number of people that simply show up on this site to harass, and impede legitimate discussion?

If we ignore them…do you think they’ll go away :-)

“Correlation does not imply causation.”
 
In other words, you know that I am a film critic, but you don’t therefore know my motivation for writing this post. Glad we cleared that up.
 
“Why did you really write this piece?”
 
I may just answer that question, but first I have one for you: Why do you ask?
 
P.S. Kathy, you may be right.

Why? Well, because despite the fact I believe it’s a very simple answer. You are a film reviewer therefore you must defend film. Since according to you that is not the case. We’ll see of course. I ask mainly because I want to know where you are coming from. Is that too much to ask? I would at least ask that you be a little less condescending in the future.

I also disagree with Kathy. I am not a troll despite what people may think. I generally question everything under the sun so that is why I am here. I should also say that I am Protestant so that will add fuel to the fire of course. Simply ignoring people isn’t very nice. I’m certainly not here to cause a stir. If I stepped out of line I apologize. That was not my intention.

Actually, yes, Eli. If “I could be doing something better with my time,” as another person had said, is an argument against any particular pastime, it is an argument against any and all. And that’s as far from “relativism” as an argument can get,  though that term is so uselessly tossed around on RC blogs that I’m not surprised to see someone with no argument resort to it.

“Why? Well, because despite the fact I believe it’s a very simple answer. You are a film reviewer therefore you must defend film.”
 
That still doesn’t explain why you want to know.
 
In other news, Pope Benedict, who works for the Church, defends the Catholic faith. Also, the pastor of the last Protestant church you attended works for the church and also defends Christian belief. Would you say to either of them “You are a pastor therefore you must defend faith” or “You are a pastor and need to keep your job”? Not if you remembered the lesson about correlation and causation that doesn’t seem to have figured in your cross-examination of me.
 
Although I still don’t know why you ask the question, I don’t mind answering it. As with most things in life, I had several overlapping reasons for writing this blog post. Above all, my motivation is that it expresses essentially what I’ve always believed and maintained, long before I ever thought about writing about film and certainly before I ever thought about getting paid for it. I’m a film lover first, a film writer second, and only thirdly a guy who happens to get paid for writing about film.
 
Incidentally, this is not my day job. I have a non-film 9 to 5 that pays the bills. Also, I’ve written professionally on other subjects and could do again, and possibly make more money doing so. So, no, I don’t need this job.
 
The reason I write about film is, firstly, because I love the subject, secondly, because I love the writing, thirdly, because other people appreciate my film writing and find it helpful, and only fourthly (chronologically as well as in priorities) because I get paid. If never made another dime from it I would not stop writing about film. It’s because I believe what I’ve written here that I’m a film writer, not the other way around.
 
That’s my main motivation. After that, and significantly lower in importance: because recent combox comments raised the subject; because I thought my readers would appreciate reading what I had to write; because I’ve done the research and I enjoy sharing what I know; because I thought it would make for a lively combox; and, last and perhaps least, because I had a blog post to write and nothing more interesting to write about.
 
Hope that’s enlightening. If I might offer a word of advice, next time try leading with the question instead of the assumption about other people’s motivations. Cheers.

I think at this point we are misinterpreting what the other is actually saying. I will accept your answer though before I get booted from the premises. I will admit though that I did jump the gun in my first response. I think I knew what I was trying to say, I just didn’t say it in a way that would lead to a direct answer.

@Mary- When’s the last time I was delighted - not entertained, but delighted! - by a movie or T.V. show: Hmmm, let’s see, right off the top of my head: Bella, Up, The Blind Side, Crazy Heart, Phenomenon, Facing the Giants, Letters to God, The Dark Knight, The Passion of the Christ, Chronicles of Narnia 1+2, Leap Year, To save a life, The Matrix, Remember the Titans, Serendipity, Return to Me, Signs, Th3ee, Exorcism of Emily Rose, Slumdog Millionaire…... and these are just the movies made in the last ten years that not only entertain me, but “delight” me, as you so eloquently put it. I swear on my word as a practicing catholic man, that all these movies have moral lessions and beautiful storytelling. So, yeah, God does bless movies, some movies at least

A melancholy parting question: Why is it that a post on anti-movie vs. pro-movie attitudes racks up scores of comments within hours, jumping to the top of the most commented list ... while a post on beauty, loss, longing and mystery is virtually ignored more than 24 hours after posting?
 
In my latest post I asked why poetic, evocative fare isn’t on the radar of Hollywood filmmakers and audience. Now I am wondering whether the whole subject is on our radars in the first place.
 
It can’t be that we would rather draw lines in the sand than actually cultivate one side of the line. Can it?
 
If you reply, don’t reply here. Reply there.

@Victor: “Then, why cite it against movies?”

See the paragraph above my original comment.

Is it just me, or does anyone else find it really bizarre that so many folks here (well, more than two) are essentially attacking a medium: the medium of film (whether it’s a medium of art, entertainment, or both).

I’ve read probably 96% of the reviews and essays on SDG’s site and I can’t once recall him defending the medium of film in itself (that job, in all of its insane quixoticity, is best left to Roger “Video Games Can’t Ever Be Art” Ebert).

I think the point’s already been made here, but would anyone be so bonkers enough as to attack the medium of sound or print or oil-based paints? You might not like a particular genre of music, literature, or visual art but you’d have to be pretty nuts to say “I hate all sound”, “I hate all words on paper,” or “I hate any application of pigment to canvas. It’s unnatural and leads to prurient thought. Flibberty-flee.”

And, I only WISH that I was attacking a straw-man argument here.

We’re CATHOLICS, not automatons.

i thnk good movies are important for catholics and would love to see some blockbuster big budget movies on the saints. Cheers.

Not all films come from Hollywood.  I agree with the poster above who pointed out that there were several good film: Ponyo, etc. I would add the Fox and the Child to that list, as well. 

We’ve enjoyed many films by Guillermo del Toro, who has some very powerful Catholic themes in his films.  Sure, not for the whole family, but good films nontheless. I agree that film should be limited for children, but children soon grow to be adults.  I’d add No Country for Old Men to that list as well. 

And don’t forget the classics: Tree of Wooden Clogs, Diary of a Country Priest, etc. 

I think it is fair to say that any art that is deeply true and beautiful, *is* Catholic. 

And as a Catholic and lover of film, they are out there, you just have to look for them.  And most likely, they are coming from a different place then Hollywood.

Steven,

I have not had time to read through all of these posts. I think the point that Plato and others ought to be studied (as should, I believe, more recent philosophers and critics as regards the nature of art) is a worthwhile point. McLuhan, of course, comes to mind, too, as important to be studied with respect to the impact on the consciousness of both the cold and hot mediums of television and film respectively. Video games and web 2.0 Youtube and the potential within that medium will demand further inquiry.

At any rate, your apostolate is not in vain and is appreciated. Here it is a Friday night and my college aged daughter is home from Fordham (she is a theology major)and my husband and I would like to spend a little time with her and we thought a movie would be a good idea. She, though conservative, is untroubled by adult themes, within a limit, and would subscribe to Newman’s view.

The belabored point: where did I go to research something fun but good to watch? Why, to decentfilms.com. Your work is appreciated.

Best,
Barbara

I still think I’m right. And there is something amiss here. I’m real late to the game to have a decent discussion about this though now.