|
|
Criteria
Our aim is to provide the public with a Catholic evaluation of both entertainment features and documentaries from a moral and artistic perspective.
Our classifications have always been intended as a guide for parents to aid them in choosing what is most appropriate for their children, and for adult viewers who wish to make informed viewing decisions in an increasingly confusing media environment. How readers ultimately apply these classifications is a matter of personal choice, and our opinion of a film’s artistic worth is necessarily subjective.
The classifications reflect the moral suitability of the films reviewed, while the reviews also take in the movies’ aesthetic qualities. This serves to prevent movie patrons from getting unwanted surprises when they see a film either at the cinema or rent or purchase a DVD. Parents must be the ultimate arbiters in evaluating their child’s emotional, spiritual and moral development, and the appropriateness of any given film. Thoughtful adults are the best judges of their own tastes and values.
Both the full review and the shorter capsule contain what we call a “viewer awareness line,” that is, a listing of all the elements – not all of them necessarily morally wrong -- that might be of concern to a prospective viewer. A scene of the beautiful act of breastfeeding, for instance, would be listed here because it involves partial nudity. The sum of these elements guides but doesn’t always determine the ultimate classification.
Though we strive for what we hope is a “consensus” evaluation – our reviewers are encouraged to look beyond their personal tastes – some personal opinion is inevitable, and you may not always agree with our critical evaluations. But we try to list every objectionable element, and if you see something likely to offend you – a “nonmarital sexual encounter” or “drug use,” for instance – that film should be avoided, regardless of our assessment of its artistic qualities.
It has always been the policy of this office – and its predecessors, including The Legion of Decency -- to review a film on its own merit, regardless of its source material or any other outside consideration, such as the private lives or personal beliefs of its creators or stars. A racy book, a violent videogame, a controversial play may all, in theory, be translated into an acceptable film.
The moral messages of a film take precedence over consideration of its film’s cinematic elements. The most basic principle used to calculate a film’s worth is the extent to which is affirms, challenges or rejects Judeo-Christian values.
The artistic and moral evaluations often go hand in hand. Problematic material treated with sensitivity is, of course, weighed differently than the exploitation of such material in a lesser film. But moral and theological considerations always take primacy over aesthetic niceties.
It is sometimes a fine line between the actions of a film’s characters (the Corleones in “The Godfather,” for instance), and the intent of the filmmakers. We endeavor to distinguish between the moral actions of a character in a fictional narrative and the moral context in which they’re presented by the creators. Thus, Francis Ford Coppola did not, we can reasonably presume, set out to glorify crime in “The Godfather,” but instead to chronicle the sorry consequences of evil.
Premarital sexual encounters, nonmarital cohabitation, adulterous relationships, homosexual activity, sexual abuse, abortion, and birth control are increasingly frequent elements in contemporary film. As stated above, we strive to separate these actions from the intent of the filmmaker. Is the film endorsing a particular choice, or merely showing that such a choice has been made? Like it or not, these themes are part of the society in which we live, and need not be ignored by filmmakers. A truly Catholic approach to such material involves a balance between compassion towards human frailties and honest recognition of the effects of sin.
While we are vigilant in detecting instances of blatant anti-Catholicism, it would be unrealistic to pretend that every incident or individual in the long history of the Church has been above reproach. Thus, portrayals of erring clergymen, or less-than-edifying events (e.g. aspects of the Inquisition or the Crusades, the condemnation of St. Joan of Arc) do not automatically render a film offensive. Quality films that fairly portray the flaws inherent in the human aspects of the church generally receive judicious evaluation, rather than knee-jerk rejection. Mean-spirited caricatures and gross historical distortions are not acceptable, and their presence is assessed in writing the review and assigning the classification.
We view everything contextually. In the Legion days, films were only classified, not reviewed. Since the early 1960’s when reviews began to be done, we have been able to offer a fuller explanation as to why the film received its classification. Our ratings are frequently in sync with the MPAA. At times, however, we take the more hard line approach. Thus a PG-13 from them will often get an A-III from us.
-
Strictly speaking, this does not simply connote films that are “for” children, or films in which they would necessarily be interested. Rather, any film free from significant objectionable content might receive this classification. In the old Hollywood days, when it was assumed that virtually all mainstream films were acceptable for all audiences, many films with “adult” subject matter, like “Giant,” received this classification. Nowadays, with even the cleanest adult films containing at least one four-letter word, such examples are rare.
-
Though a 13-year-old is technically an adolescent, the original intent of this classification was an endorsement for older teens. However, some ambiguity remains in this category, and the Office generally indicates whether the film is most appropriate for “older teens” or anyone over the age of 13. Films with nudity, overt sexual activity (even if implied), violence with bloodshed, and use of four letter words are almost never allowed in the A-I or A-II categories. “Akeelah and the Bee” – an uplifting film about girl who wins a spelling bee – is one exception. In the film, one schoolmate utters an expletive. Yet, “Akeelah” was deemed so appropriate and inspirational for young viewers, that the movie was classified A-I.
-
This can be a tricky category. Adult sensibilities run the gamut from a cosmopolitan readership with a wider tolerance for edgy subject matter to more sensitive moviegoers who find certain elements less palatable. We try to strike a balance between the two. Oftentimes, a worthy film is clearly “adult” in subject matter, but older teens might derive benefit from it, so a sentence may be added about it being “acceptable” or “possibly acceptable” for “older teens.” Dramatically justified violence, moderate sexual content of a “non-deviant” nature, restrained nudity, and valid use of coarse language are permissible here.
-
This is an extremely restrictive classification, suggesting a far narrower allowance than may sometimes be realized, and therefore excluding even most adult viewers. It had originally been the A-IV category. That had been defined as “certain movies that require some analysis and explanation in order to avoid mistaken interpretations and false conclusions.” The L, like the A-IV before it, is generally for those quality films that have more challenging material than an A-III in terms of nudity, sex, violence, or language, but are still worthy, if viewed in the appropriate Catholic context. In the 1960s, for instance, those increasingly permissive European films (from Bergman, DeSica, Fellini, and so on) which – at that time – far eclipsed what was allowed by the Hollywood production code, but were nonetheless works of great aesthetic value, were given the A-IV. To these, we would add some films that, if not necessarily worthy artistically, nonetheless are too strong for an A-III but not offensive enough to merit an O.
-
This is the present-day counterpart to the old C or “condemned” rating. This classification is for films that are excessively violent, graphically sexual, or laden with non-stop vulgarity, or that have little or no redeeming social value or dramatic justification.
“Torture porn” films like the “Saw” or “Hostel” franchise, gross-out comedies like “Superbad” and “Good Luck Chuck” are naturals for this category. But even classier fare such as “Feast of Love” or the Judd Apatow brand of R-rated humor – “Knocked Up” and “The 40-Year-Old-Virgin” – with their surprisingly moral endings, which in themselves would be praiseworthy – nonetheless get O’s for their over-the-top raunchy humor and pervasive expletives.
Films that directly seem to contradict church teaching on matters such as euthanasia (“Million Dollar Baby,” “The Sea Inside”), suicide (“Thelma & Louise”), vigilante killing and revenge (“The Brave One”) also get O’s no matter how lauded they are by the secular press.
|