"Seen Any Good Flicks Lately?"

A week or so ago in the Deseret News, there was an article in the entertainment section about the Catholic Church’s movie rating system. I was especially interested to read the article because many years ago—probably when they first began reviewing movies—I accidentally stumbled across a book of their movie ratings at a bookstore, and bought it. I used the book to evaluate movies that we might rent from the nearby (“Now and Then”) video store in Simi. However, when newer movies appeared in the video store, I needed an updated book to continue to advise me on family-friendly films. And, although I have often browsed in bookstores to find such a book, I have never again serendipitously stumbled across one. Of course, where one door closes, another one often opens. And in this case, I was extremely pleased to find an excellent substitute for the Catholic movie reviews: Focus on the Family’s “Plugged-In” online movie reviews. “Plugged-In” quite strictly critiques the content of available films.
(See: http://www.pluggedinonline.com/movies/) If you are concerned about whether a movie meets the 13th Article of Faith criteria of “virtuous, lovely, or of good report, or praiseworthy,” this website is definitely useful.

Getting back to the Deseret News article, I was happy to learn that the Catholic Church movie reviews can also be accessed online through their website: http://www.usccb.org. Their reviews are another point of view and not in any way carbon copies of the reviews appearing on “Plugged-In,” so it is worth your time to check both sites to determine if you really want to watch any particular film. What I especially liked in the Catholic website was their lists of “Top Ten Movies” of the year and “Top Ten Family Films.” Currently online are their lists for 2009 and extending as far back as 1965.

Their top ten picks of “family films” for the year 2009 were:
1. Astro Boy
2. Bandslam
3. A Christmas Carol (animated, Jim Carrey)
4. Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs
5. Hannah Montana the Movie
6. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
7. Monsters vs. Aliens
8. Ponyo
9. The Princess and the Frog
10. Shorts

Their more “adult” or general selections for Top Ten movies of 2009 included:
1. The Blind Side
3. Fantastic Mr. Fox
6. Invictus
7. Julie & Julia
8. Star Trek (the prequel)
9. Up
10. Where the Wild things Are

Did you raise your eyebrows, as I did, at some of their selections or their classifications? For instance, why did “Harry Potter” end up on the OK for kids list, and “Fantastic Mr. Fox” and “Up” on the better for ‘adults’ list? Noticing such odd or puzzling decisions on their part, I decided that, when in doubt about their evaluations, it probably would be wise to check “Plugged-In” too, just to be on the safe side, or to get a second opinion.

The primary reason I was interested in the Top Ten lists is The Knight rarely takes me to the movies. We only go if I insist on it—which I rarely do. Instead, The Knight likes to buy DVDs. And the ones he buys, sad-but-true, are frequently unappealing to me. So, potentially, I’ve missed a great many “good” movies. I also think DVDs are vastly overpriced. I personally cannot justify spending $10-$20 on a DVD as long as the Dollar Theater is still operating down in Provo. AND, I recently discovered that movies are available to rent for a week at a time for $1.00 from the public library!

So. Armed with my lists of Top Ten Movies, I have begun checking out movies from the public library. None of the movies I’ve brought home have been movies that The Knight would have selected, so I’ve resigned myself to watching them by myself. Some of the Top Tens that I’ve watched so far:

—Julie &; Julia
—The Visitor
—I Am David
—Au Revoir Les Enfants (French film)
—In America
—Secret Lives (a documentary on The Holocaust)
—The City Ember
and, next on the docket is “The Boy in the Striped Pajamas.”

Amazingly, I actually cajoled The Knight into watching “The City Ember” with me on Friday night. He was surprised that he’d never heard of it, since it was science fiction. I was pleased that there were no offensive words, nor suggestive scenes, nor gratuitous violence. Happily, The Knight mostly liked it, too, even though it “started out slow”—I think what that means is nothing blew up in the entire movie! LOL

Hollywood's Breach

The other evening, the Knight and I watched “Breach,” a 2007 movie which I had wanted to see for quite a long time. The movie is based on the true story of Robert Hanssen, an FBI agent, convicted of spying for the Soviet Union / Russia for more than two decades.

Alas, the movie lacked 3 key elements which the Knight especially enjoys in movies: lots of stuff blowing up, lots of car chases, and lots of people getting the tar kicked out of them. You know, gratuitous special effects violence. (LOL) Nevertheless, even with none of that, the two-hour production was nerve-wrackingly tense. We knew from the first few minutes of the movie what the outcome was going to be, but it was still tense.

My interpretation of the film was that it was an interesting study of pride and anger. Agent Hanssen was angry because he felt that his keen intelligence and brillant work were neither sufficiently recognized nor justly rewarded by the FBI. As a consequence, he sold out to the Russians for big bucks as his way of punishing the FBI for dissing him. Ultimately, his pride and anger became a self-destruct-mechanism—first, it slowly pulled him apart as he lived two different lives, and then it triggered his final traitorous act which resulted in his arrest and imprisonment. It was a sad, cautionary tale about pride and anger.

Hollywood, however, was not satisfied with a psychological portrait of Robert Hanssen the traitor along with a chronicle of the careful work done by the FBI to nail the guy. The screenplay writers and the director decided that they needed to spice up the story for the big screen by adding a few fictitious elements, namely, “sexual perversions” and religious hypocrisy or fanaticism (Catholic). And, Hollywood style, they also felt the need to make political commentary. Several major scenes were entirely fictional, as listed in Wikipedia:

• The real O'Neill knew going in that Hanssen was the subject of a counterintelligence investigation. There was no cover story about sexual perversions, and no dramatic meeting where O'Neill learned the truth.

• There was no extensive contact outside the office between O'Neill and Hanssen as portrayed in the film (the O'Neills visiting the Hanssens, the Hanssens dropping by O'Neill's apartment). However, Hanssen did take O'Neill to church.

• The scene where Hanssen takes O'Neill out into the woods and drunkenly fires his pistol is fictional.

• Unlike in the movie, O'Neill never saw Hanssen after the arrest.

In my opinion, all of the scenes depicting sexual and religious “deviancy” were distasteful and added nothing of value to the movie. On the contrary: these scenes detracted from the story and its presentation, and distorted the truth. These scenes could have been deleted and some more accurate parts added, along with some terrific acting, to result in a more powerful story. Truth need not be fictionalized to make it compelling. Resorting to cheap sensationalism and an appeal to anti-religion sentiments were unnecessary.

As the distasteful and repulsive scenes transpired, it was as if obnoxious commercials were interrupting the story. During those scenes I began thinking about the writers and the director, and the ax they were obviously grinding, as well as their cynical opinions of American movie-goers. They obviously did not want anyone to leave the theater with any feelings of respect for the FBI, since the movie included scenes that belittled the FBI, in general, and suggested that the FBI itself could be blamed for Hanssen’s actions. Hollywood apparently also believes that religiously-minded people are dangerous or mentally unstable—they definitely are not “normal.”