Barton_Keyes

March 2016 TCM Spotlight: Condemned

21 posts in this topic

27 films -- Thursdays in March

 

March 3

THE STORY OF TEMPLE DRAKE (1933)

BLACK NARCISSUS (1947)

DESIGN FOR LIVING (1933)

THE OUTLAW (1943)

BABY FACE (1933)

WILD BOYS OF THE ROAD (1933)

 

March 10

M (1951)

THE FRENCH LINE (1954)

AND GOD CREATED WOMAN (1956)

UNTAMED YOUTH (1957)

BREATHLESS (1960)

 

March 17

VIRIDIANA (1961)

KISS ME, STUPID (1964)

BLOW-UP (1966)

NEVER ON SUNDAY (1960)

REFLECTIONS IN A GOLDEN EYE (1967)

 

March 24

THE CAREY TREATMENT (1972)

THE COMPETITION (1980)

THOSE LIPS, THOSE EYES (1980)

LENORA: A CHILD'S TALE OF THE SUPERNATURAL (1973)

ICE CASTLES (1978)

 

March 31

THE MOON IS BLUE (1953)

BABY DOLL (1956)

L'AMORE (1948)

STRANGE CARGO (1940)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As reported elsewhere, this series will be hosted by Sr. Rose Pacatte. Sr. Pacatte is a member of the Daughters of St. Paul. She is also the director of the Pauline Center for Media Studies in Los Angeles and a film critic for The National Catholic Reporter.

 

CZrPol_WkAAnhEn.jpg

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you know what, if any, titles will be replaced in Canada at this point?

 

 

 

 

As I look at this list, I can say that Blow Up was a movie I can spend a lot of time writing about how much I hate this movie for misleading me about it being a mystery.  Seeing it once was once too often.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I look at this list, I can say that Blow Up was a movie I can spend a lot of time writing about how much I hate this movie for misleading me about it being a mystery.  Seeing it once was once too often.

Unless the mystery is why people who don't like it continue to talk about it. :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you know what, if any, titles will be replaced in Canada at this point?

 

 

 

 

I'm pleased to report that none of the titles in this festival are currently scheduled to be replaced in Canada.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for posting this.  It's the first time I've seen the promo, and I couldn't help roll my eyes at the ending where even with this topic TCM had to use the non-grammatically correct Let's Movie (movie is not a verb) phrase with a word we can only guess at because it is Let's *********** 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The TCM Podcast welcomes Sister Rose Pacatte, host of TCM's March 2016 spotlight on films condemned by the Catholic Legion of Decency. Sister Rose is the founding director of the Pauline Center for Media Studies in Culver City, California. We talk about the Legion of Decency, film literacy, how cinema can examine spirituality and the Academy Awards. You can follow Sister Rose on Twitter @SrRoseMovies and check out her website sisterrosemovies.net"

 

https://soundcloud.c...er-rose-pacatte

 

Scott McGee & Sr. Rose discuss #tcmcondemned, media literacy, the razzies & more!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just watched Sister Rose Pacatte introduce The Carey Treatment.  It was a very interesting movie, but some of Sister Rose's comments were inappropriate - way too biased.  For example, she said that the movie contains dialog taking the anti-abortion position and the "pro-abortion" position.  This is not at all the case - at no time did any dialog contain pro-abortion statements - some dialog puts forth some of the reasons why abortion procedures should not be only available from shoddy practitioners in unsafe backrooms, and some characters describe a willingness to perform abortions and explain why they perform abortions, but nobody in the movie was promoting abortions or enthusiastic about them.  Far from it.

 

After the movie, Sister Rose made the comment that it was appropriate for the Church to issue a public condemnation of the movie when it was released, as that is the Church's role.  I could not disagree more.  It is most definitely not the Church's role to issue a condemnation of a movie to the general public on the grounds that some of the topics are against Church doctrine or too impolite.  

 

If the movie shows sadistic cruelty or murder as fun, or promotes prejudice, I can understand how a condemnation issued to the general public might be appropriate, but to try to sway public opinion against a movie merely because the sentiments expressed by some of the characters are not in line with the Church's notions of propriety and decorum, or because abortion is not condemned without exception, is not acceptable in a constitutional democracy with a 1st amendment containing an establishment clause.  

 

It's perfectly OK for the Church to tell its followers what to like or dislike, and what products to buy or not buy, but the Bishops have no business telling the rest of us what to believe and which movies are presentable to the public.  This was true in the early 70's, when the Carey Treatment was released, and is also true today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just watched Sister Rose Pacatte introduce The Carey Treatment.  It was a very interesting movie, but some of Sister Rose's comments were inappropriate - way too biased.  For example, she said that the movie contains dialog taking the anti-abortion position and the "pro-abortion" position.  This is not at all the case - at no time did any dialog contain pro-abortion statements - some dialog puts forth some of the reasons why abortion procedures should not be only available from shoddy practitioners in unsafe backrooms, and some characters describe a willingness to perform abortions and explain why they perform abortions, but nobody in the movie was promoting abortions or enthusiastic about them.  Far from it.

 

After the movie, Sister Rose made the comment that it was appropriate for the Church to issue a public condemnation of the movie when it was released, as that is the Church's role.  I could not disagree more.  It is most definitely not the Church's role to issue a condemnation of a movie to the general public on the grounds that some of the topics are against Church doctrine or too impolite.  

 

If the movie shows sadistic cruelty or murder as fun, or promotes prejudice, I can understand how a condemnation issued to the general public might be appropriate, but to try to sway public opinion against a movie merely because the sentiments expressed by some of the characters are not in line with the Church's notions of propriety and decorum, or because abortion is not condemned without exception, is not acceptable in a constitutional democracy with a 1st amendment containing an establishment clause.  

 

It's perfectly OK for the Church to tell its followers what to like or dislike, and what products to buy or not buy, but the Bishops have no business telling the rest of us what to believe and which movies are presentable to the public.  This was true in the early 70's, when the Carey Treatment was released, and is also true today.

 

The RCC has first amendment rights just like the rest of us.  So of course it is OK for them to issue a public condemnation of a movie when it is released.    

 

I can't stand the RCC and feel they are a corrupt group of ignorant folks but they can tell the public anything they wish as long as it complies with the IRS rules for being a non taxable entity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The RCC has first amendment rights just like the rest of us.  So of course it is OK for them to issue a public condemnation of a movie when it is released.    

 

I can't stand the RCC and feel they are a corrupt group of ignorant folks but they can tell the public anything they wish as long as it complies with the IRS rules for being a non taxable entity.

James: I don't understand your reference to the first amendment here - I did not propose that the government restrict the right of the RCC to issue a statement. What I said was that it was inappropriate for the RCC to issue a statement informing the general public what they should or should not watch.  This has nothing to do with government restriction of speech, so the 1st amendment has nothing to do with it.

 

Tax policy and the tax code also have nothing to do with my criticism, which applies whether or not the tax code even exists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

James: I don't understand your reference to the first amendment here - I did not propose that the government restrict the right of the RCC to issue a statement. What I said was that it was inappropriate for the RCC to issue a statement informing the general public what they should or should not watch.  This has nothing to do with government restriction of speech, so the 1st amendment has nothing to do with it.

 

Tax policy and the tax code also have nothing to do with my criticism, which applies whether or not the tax code even exists.

 

Ok, so maybe being up the 1st amendment was a needless tangent.

 

But I don't view what the RCC is doing as inappropriate.   All they are doing is informing the public with their opinion about the content of a film.

 

e.g. it is inappropriate for the RCC to discuss what is a sin?     Of course not,  that is just what they feel is their duty.   We can just ignore their silly rants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One more evening of this spotlight.

 

A reminder of the movies airing in order this Thursday:

 

 

THE MOON IS BLUE

 

BABY DOLL

 

L'AMORE

 

STRANGE CARGO

 

KEY TO THE CITY

 

LOVE IN THE AFTERNOON

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One more evening of this spotlight.

 

A reminder of the movies airing in order this Thursday:

 

 

THE MOON IS BLUE

 

BABY DOLL

 

L'AMORE

 

STRANGE CARGO

 

KEY TO THE CITY

 

LOVE IN THE AFTERNOON

 

Worth noting that KEY TO THE CITY replaces RIFIFFI on the Canadian schedule.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Worth noting that KEY TO THE CITY replaces RIFIFFI on the Canadian schedule.

 

Yes, people were trying to figure out why Key to the City would have been condemned and the best we could come up with is the real life relationship between Gable and Young and not the film itself.

 

Often the films that replace the other titles are chosen for their length only. 

 

What the objection to the American scheduled film is by the LOD will likely not be discussed as Sister Rose will likely not talk about any movie past Strange Cargo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, so maybe being up the 1st amendment was a needless tangent.

 

But I don't view what the RCC is doing as inappropriate.   All they are doing is informing the public with their opinion about the content of a film.

 

e.g. it is inappropriate for the RCC to discuss what is a sin?     Of course not,  that is just what they feel is their duty.   We can just ignore their silly rants.

My point was that the general public is not subject to the dictates of the RCC.  It is disrespectful and therefore inappropriate for the RCC to define "sin" for non-Catholics, and to tell non-Catholics what movies to see and not see.  I respect the right of Catholics to believe what they believe, and the right of Catholics to decide how they feel about various works of art.  When a Catholic says: "I don't like this, because it portrays sin in the view of the Church," I don't tell them they are wrong and they should appreciate and enjoy the film - that would be disrespectful of their religion and their point of view.  I think I should be able to expect the same respect from the Church and other Catholics. 

 

I believe the Golden Rule is still in the Bible.  It seems to me that the Church should focus first in acknowledging and understanding the Golden Rule, and the other basic doctrines in the canon, before focusing on and expending resources on dictating to non-Catholics which movies they should or should not see and appreciate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point was that the general public is not subject to the dictates of the RCC.  It is disrespectful and therefore inappropriate for the RCC to define "sin" for non-Catholics, and to tell non-Catholics what movies to see and not see.  I respect the right of Catholics to believe what they believe, and the right of Catholics to decide how they feel about various works of art.  When a Catholic says: "I don't like this, because it portrays sin in the view of the Church," I don't tell them they are wrong and they should appreciate and enjoy the film - that would be disrespectful of their religion and their point of view.  I think I should be able to expect the same respect from the Church and other Catholics. 

 

I believe the Golden Rule is still in the Bible.  It seems to me that the Church should focus first in acknowledging and understanding the Golden Rule, and the other basic doctrines in the canon, before focusing on and expending resources on dictating to non-Catholics which movies they should or should not see and appreciate.

Welcome to the boards.  I think you may be going a bit overboard about the RCC on this. Nobody who is Catholic would ever say 'I don't like this painting or I don't like this movie because it portrays sin in the view of our church.' Nobody would talk that way. It is more indirect than direct. Instead, someone would see clips from a movie or read a review, or hear about a movie through word of mouth, and instinctively know it's not something they feel should be watched. In short, a devout Catholic would already be conditioned to stay away from that type of "sordid" material, and anything a religious leader would say about it would only serve as a guidepost or moral support to stay away from it.

 

My family is Catholic, and most mothers in our church would (and still do) check the bishops' movie classifications about new releases. These classifications are still made and available at the link down below. 

 

Many Catholics do not trust the MPAA ratings system, and that is why the Catholic News Service continues to issue it own classifications (meaning films are still judged by the church). But now, instead of being condemned, objectionable material is marked on the website with the letter 'O' which means morally Offensive.

 

Only twice as a child do I remember a religious leader coming right out and telling us not to watch something. Once a nun told us to avoid watching a daytime soap opera, because she objected to the messages that were being presented in some of the storylines.

 

And another time, we attended weekly mass and the priest (a very young priest, not a stodgy old school priest) told us that it was our moral obligation to boycott Martin Scorsese's THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST. That was in 1987 when I was a teen, and he spent the whole Sunday sermon talking about how some films went against our beliefs and doctrine. I think he was asked to give that sermon by the bishop or archbishop and that same sermon was delivered at most Catholic churches across the country in direct response to what was seen as Scorsese's blasphemous interpretation of Christ's life.

 

But this was the only time, aside from the nun complaining about soap operas, that I remember being explicitly told that something was to be avoided. Of course, we had the individual freedom to go along with that advice or not to go along with it. Most of the congregation agreed about Scorsese's film being problematic, since it is not what we had studied and learned about Christ. Never once, though, did we go outside our church and tell people in other religions or in other walks of life not to watch a movie or TV show because it violated our principles. We figured the leaders of those other groups would instruct their followers accordingly. And usually, the more fundamentalist or right-wing churches, like the Baptists and the Mormons, were much more vigilant than we were about the immorality of Hollywood.

 

http://www.usccb.org/media/movie-reviews/cns-mpaa-movie-classifications.cfm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding Strange Cargo (1940) which aired at 1:15am EDT tonight. The studio initially released  this film and got a "Condemned" rating. Then they made some minor changes, released it, and it was reduced to "unobjectionable for adults". I would be curious to know whether the version airing is the original "condemned" version or the modified version. Does anyone know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding Strange Cargo (1940) which aired at 1:15am EDT tonight. The studio initially released  this film and got a "Condemned" rating. Then they made some minor changes, released it, and it was reduced to "unobjectionable for adults". I would be curious to know whether the version airing is the original "condemned" version or the modified version. Does anyone know?

 

I did not see last night's airing, but previously TCM has broadcast the "unobjectionable for adults" version of STRANGE CARGO which audiences originally saw in 1940.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us