SDG here with some Decent Films doings.
I've finally gotten around to posting a piece I wrote a ways back for Our Sunday Visitor, “Hollywood and Religion: Priests, Nuns and the American Silver Screen.”
I've also posted new reviews of the new The Day the Earth Stood Still remake as well as the 1951 original film. The new film is directed by Scott Derrickson (The Exorcism of Emily Rose), an Evangelical Christian. Since the original 1951 film is noted for the Christological resonances of the alien ambassador Klaatu, I hoped Derrickson's involvement in the remake was a positive sign that the sequel might pick up on those themes. Unfortunately, the opposite is the case — the new Klaatu is considerably less inspirational than the original.
In other news, recent DVD releases include Horton Hears a Who! and The Dark Knight. (Buy 'em through my Amazon.com links and send a few cents my way!)
I think a rebuttal of Neo’s new Al Gore-inspired film should be made, and it should be called The Day the Earth Still Stood. 🙂
SDG,
In your Hollywood and Religion article, did you leave out a movie? Directly after you mention The Count of Monte Cristo (2002), there is a (2005) with no movie.
Ha! 🙂
Ah, thanks, editing glitch. Cinderella Man re-added.
Dear SDG
Based on your review, I feel rather disappointed with Derrickson, who after writing and directing a good movie like Emily Rose, went to direct another’s (bad) script, and apparently is going to write the script for the new The Birds, another futile remake.
Wouldn’t this scene be an imitation of the very good one from Hitchcock’s Torn Curtain, in which Paul Newman has an “equation duel” with an scientist in East Germany?
As for the article, it’s good, but since it was written for a journalistic vehicle, I think I would like to read a longer version on Decent Films.
Have you seen the documentary on I Confess‘ DVD? In it one of those film historians who seem to know every possible thought Hitchcock ever had says that in the correspondence exchanged by the director and Breen, both got involved into lengthy discussions of Catholic doctrine “…like two altar boys…“, or something like it.
I also think that Leo McCarey (who happens to be my favorite director of all time) deserved a more individualized treatment. Catholicism was fundamental not only to almost all of his great movies, but also to his last one. And he was by no means a mediocre propagandist, being one of the Hollywood dinosaurs whose technical skills and experience go from silents to Cinemascope. It’s hard to find more information about him on the Internet, aside from this (rather dismissive) article. There’s also his new biography, but given its title, it may probably also be biased against him.
That looks rather strange, SDG. I don’t get why would the absence of Golden Era Catholic movies on the Vatican Film list be proof of their “lack of spiritual depth”, if the same list also includes Francesco, a movie in whose review you wrote that
And finally, regarding the presence of Catholicism in movies through the latest decades, I think one could point to exception in every age, as for example Easy Rider, in which a junkie, after an LSD overdose, says various prayers, including the Catholic version of the Apostles’ Creed. Or The Lost Boys, a vampire flick from the 80’s in which Holy Water is not taken for granted as just a plot device, but is showed being taken from a Catholic church while a baptism is taking place.
And oh, just another one:
Wouldn’t it be Karl Malden?
I’m disappointed about TDTESS too. Hadn’t heard about the new Birds script, but I’m not so sure that one’s futile. I don’t think The Birds is such a great movie — there’s a movie that could possibly stand a remake.
Heh. Maybe someday I’ll expand it… with more attention to McCarey, perhaps.
The inclusion of Francesco is certainly a mistake in my book. The absence of any Hollywood films except Ben-Hur, OTOH, speaks to the dearth of material. (I do agree that the inclusion of Ben-Hur is highly questionable, certainly in the Religion category — if it belongs anywhere, it should be in Art. My pick for a Hollywood Religion film would be The Song of Bernadette.)
Oy, thanks for the catch! Dunno what I was thinking. Fixed.
Not being much of a movie buff–the last one I went out to see was “Selena”–I often confuse “The Day the Earth Stood Still” with “A Day Without Mexicans”.
SDG,
Do you plan on reviewing Doubt?
I just happened to check out the movie from the library last week, having no clue there is a new version. I loved it. I was way too unimaginative to see the (now) obvious christological references and prototyping, but it was just nice to go back to a seemingly simpler era of setting and filmmaking.
It surprizes me that you feel this way, Jimmy. I think you missed out on this movie. I thought this was better than the original and more Biblical overall. What about the pro-life comment, what about the prayer beads shown while somebody was praying the Our Father, what about the prominent display of St. Pat’s Cathedral, and the reference to The Flood, and when the orbs leave saying it was a “mass exodus”. This movie, though it did have Christological tones (I’m thinking about the end, in particular), was more about the Old Testament God. We are told in Genesis 1 and 2 that we are made to take care of what God has given us. We are told in Genesis 6 that man became so wicked, God wished He never created man. I really think that, for this movie, these two go together. I think this is further continued with the pro-family and pro man and woman compliment each other message.
What is NOT in this movie? Anti-Military theme (as a matter of fact, soldiers are sympathetic and brave and good characters), People are bad (the humans aren’t presented as jerks. One could expect Kathy Bates’ character to sneer and mock the alien, but, she remains professional), Prominent Homosexual Characters, Pro-Communist propeganda, and all the other leftist leanings that Hollywood wants to deaden our senses with.
The entire movie goes without saying, “Global Warming” or “Climate Change.” It just says that we’re destroying the Earth and it is one of the few planets in the cosmos that can support life. It would support life, but, not human life. It wouldn’t truly die, but, if we were killed off, we would become the food of the locust-things. We would be used appropriately. Klaatu doesn’t preach HOW we should change, what should we do, we can go with nuclear energy, as long as it doesn’t destroy the Earth. He gives us another chance….again….and again….just like a Certain Biblican Figure….
The only thing, I think, that the movie got wrong, was evolution. I don’t think evolution works overnight, as the John Cleese character claims it can.
…Incidentally, perhaps the Jacob name change occured because it is a more Biblical name. A friend pointed out to me that in this movie, we are saved because of a little boy. ???
My appologies for thinking you were Jimmy, SDG. Forgive me.
~Attia
Wow, Attia, I really disagree. (Did you read my review? Just wondering.)
You say “soldiers are sympathetic and brave and good characters.” What about “Colonel Mustache”? He seems clearly intended to be a swaggering yahoo (I didn’t put this in my review, but I suspect his Southern accent may be a poke at W) — and I’ve since heard that director Scott Derrickson has commented, in connection with the prosecuting attorney character in The Exorcism of Emily Rose, on the widespread perception of that character as a villain (which Derrickson didn’t mean him to be) and particularly the perception that his mustache made him villainous. If Derrickson is aware of the mustache-villain association, and if Colonel Mustache comes off as arrogant and half-cocked in other respects (and he does), then I have to think Derrickson knows what he’s doing here.
While I agree that Bates’s character could be worse, let’s not overstate her goodness. She wants to torture Klaatu to get the info she wants. Lack of sneering and mockery doesn’t make her sympathetic.
I take it as a sop to demographics: “Jacob” is a more plausible name for a little boy of today than “Bobby.” (Of course, they did keep “Helen,” which is less plausible today than it was in 1951.)
It would important if the Church reinstituted this:
History of the Legion of Decency
By Rick Kephart
The Legion of Decency was formed in 1934 to combat immoral movies. People took a pledge, in church, against bad movies. They pledged not only never to go to any morally objectionable movie, but never even to go to any movie theater that had ever shown a morally objectionable film!
This was very effective in discouraging Hollywood from making movies which would earn the disapproval of the Legion of Decency. And the Legion of Decency’s ratings were very strict, much more strict than the modern Catholic Bishops’ movie rating system (which has been sadly ineffective in influencing the making of movies).
Catholics used to be united, strong and strict, and then they were a powerful force to be reckoned with by the movie industry!
Around the end of the 1950’s, things began to change. The emphasis was taken off condemning bad movies, and a deliberate effort was made to make The Legion of Decency more `positive’. The pledge gradually faded out of use, until it was finally completely forgotten.
By 1975, the Legion of Decency had ceased to exist. It was replaced by the Bishops’ new Catholic rating system. That ended the Church’s influence on the movie industry. Movie standards continue to drop.
In researching the history of the Legion of Decency, this disturbing bit of information came up:
I called the library at St. Charles’ Seminary for information about the Legion of Decency. Whomever I spoke to had heard of it, but knew nothing about the pledge. He looked it up in the New Catholic Encyclopedia, and told me what it had to say about the Legion of Decency.
In 1957, Pope Pius XII issued an encyclical called Miranda prorsus. The Encyclopedia claimed that the encyclical called for the Legion of Decency to be more positive, to put its emphasis on promoting good movies rather than condemning bad movies, and have more respect for people’s consciences. In response to that encyclical (so claims this Encyclopedia) the Legion of Decency changed, very gradually (with no definite date). Eventually, it went completely out of existence, to be replaced by the rating system we now have.
I asked the person on the phone if he knew where I could get a copy of that encyclical, so I could read it myself. He said he thought it was most likely out of print.
But I found one, and read it.
There is nothing in the encyclical that could lead anyone to think he was calling for the Legion of Decency to change what they were doing! It not only vigorously condemns bad movies, but also immoral TV shows and radio programs. It would form a good defense for exactly what the Legion of Decency was doing, if it were considered honestly.
I doubt the author of that article in the Encyclopedia expected anyone to actually read that out-of-print encyclical to see if what he wrote was true.
People do tend to claim that Pope Pius XII said things which he in fact never said.
Dan Hunter, is there no subject in the world that doesn’t elicit the response from you, “That reminds me of another thing that’s wrong with the Church today”?
Some more on the Legion of Decency
Dear Dan
I would like to humbly suggest you that whenever you quote third party content here in the future, please consider separating it somehow from the rest of your comment, either by using blockquote or italics (if you don’t know already, you cand do this by putting the text in question between, respectively [blockquote] [/blockquote] and [i] [/i], with < and > instead of the brackets); or by any other means that doesn’t use HTML if you don’t like it, such as skipping lines, or putting *** —, for example, between the texts.
On your previous comment, I had difficulty understanding whether the final paragraphs were also from this Rick Kephart or from you.
SDG,
Until the Church again embraces its true state as the social and moral juggernaut of policing souls and guiding them towards salvation, then yes, when I am reminded of how far She has fallen since the early sixties, then in all charity I will continue to comment and goad mankind into obedience to Her immemorial teachings.
Thank you.