Of all the comments made following the tragic shooting in Aurora, perhaps the most piercing were those of Peter Bogdanovich, the Hollywood director:
At first, some of the people [at The Dark Night Rises] thought it was part of the movie. That’s very telling. Violence on the screen has increased tenfold. . . . Today, there’s a general numbing of the audience. There’s too much murder and killing. You make people insensitive by showing it all the time. The body count in pictures is huge. It numbs the audience into thinking it’s not so terrible.
Bogdanovich went on: “Very few people have experienced murder directly. Generally speaking, the average person hasn’t experienced it, and the average director hasn’t experienced it. I think if they had, they would make their films differently.”
The comments were part of a broader discussion at the Hollywood Reporter about the effect graphic films were having upon American society. In a candid piece titled, “Beware the Dangers of Film’s Dark Side,” the paper’s lead reviewer admitted that “few critics want to come right out and say that films they love might be responsible for murderous behavior.”
Of course, for even broaching such views, the Reporter (hardly an organ of social conservatism) provoked scorn. The Atlantic dismissed Bogdanovich’s “mind-numbingly wrong-headed piece” and even ridiculed moralistic “hand-wringing” after the tragedy. From others, came a different refrain: “Millions of ordinary Americans watch modern films all the time, with plenty of sex and violence, but they don’t suddenly snap and commit insane acts of evil.”
True, but comparing common decency favorably with psychopathic behavior is an incredibly low standard by which to judge moral conduct. Furthermore, there is a larger question to ask.
Even if no direct causal connection can be proven between acts of terror and the modern cinema—and even if the vast majority of moviegoers remain outwardly decent—what are harmful films doing to their souls?
As the Gospels teach us, a believer’s inner well-being can be damaged by what they absorb, even if they appear healthy on the surface.
Dr. Alice von Hildebrand has asked how many realize this:
Am I wrong in fearing that “modern man,” deafened by sounds, poisoned by evil images and pictures, can no longer register cacophonic sounds which harm the sensitive enamel of their souls? This is why I often hear people say: “I do not see why this is shocking. I do not see why this is wrong. I do not see why others call this coarse.”
Film is a very powerful medium, arguably the most powerful in the arts. For many years Hollywood understood this, and exercised restraint. Whatever sins were going on in the real world, moviemakers had enough sense not to glorify or graphically depict them on screen; action and character development took place within a moral framework, where right and wrong were recognized. For roughly three decades, 1935-1965, mainstream films maintained standards that broadly (albeit imperfectly) reflected a Judeo-Christian outlook. And for all the complaints against the Motion Picture Production Code, as it became known, it did not impede (and in the opinion of many, it fostered), what is now known as the golden age of cinema. This was the era when William Wyler and Orson Welles, John Ford and Frank Capra, and Alfred Hitchcock and Fred Zinnemann produced their greatest work.
Then—almost overnight—the roof caved in, and the film industry became one more casualty of the cultural revolution of the 1960s. The film code was scrapped, and by the end of the decade, and into the 1970s, a slew of films, unimaginably graphic for a previous generation, were released: Midnight Cowboy, Last Tango in Paris, A Clockwork Orange, and Taxi Driver. Hailed as works of cinematic genius by avant-garde critics, they deeply offended the sensibility of others, and were early warning signs of the present-day culture wars. Christopher Nolan’s Batman trilogy—whatever its technical achievements—is a product of this break with the past.
Bursting at the seams with secularism, and often driven by anarchic impulses, its not surprising that modern Hollywood has suffered a cultural descent.
What is surprising is the number of modern-day Christians who’ve fallen prey to a misguided notion of art.
During the height of the Sopranos’ appeal, it was amazing to see how many practicing Catholics were addicted to the series—notwithstanding its ultraviolent, sexually degrading content—discussing each episode, as if the experience was no more unusual than attending a local parish council. Alas, one suspects they knew more about the depravity of Tony Soprano and his fictional family than they did about John Paul II’s Theology of the Body, which specifically condemns abuses in the audiovisual arts; or the 1989 pontifical document directly linking “sadistic violence” in film with pornography.
Of course, the Catholic hierarchy has not always provided sound guidance. The USCCB’s Office for Film and Broadcasting has often appeased, rather than resisted, bad cultural trends: witness its favorable review of the notorious Brokeback Mountain, a rating that changed only after a hue and cry was raised. Even the L’Osservatore Romano has an uneven record here. In 1999, reflecting the papal statements which have warned against morally offensive films and entertainment, the newspaper deplored the degree sex and violence had overtaken movies, and defended reasonable restrictions. Yet, just ten years later, under new editors, the Osservatore paid tribute to the drug-laden Easy Rider and spoke of how “impressive” the horrifying Texas Chainsaw Massacre was. For good measure, the paper also mocked “the hypocritical and anachronistic” production code.
Something is wrong when the Hollywood Reporter is voicing more serious caution about modern film than the Vatican’s own newspaper.
The Catholic Church once had a clear and consistent voice against decadence, and was a huge cultural force in Hollywood, but that unity has fractured, and its influence waned.
It is ironic that many contemporary Catholics, eager to be seen as non-prudish and artistically sophisticated, have lowered their standards, even though some of our greatest artists warned against that.
Bogdanovich commented, “Back in the ‘70’s, I asked Orson Welles what he thought was happening to pictures, and he said, ‘We’re brutalizing the audience. We’re going to end up like the Roman circus, live at the Coliseum.’ The respect for human life seems to be eroding.”
Legendary director Frank Capra was equally direct: “Filming two naked people thrashing about on a bed, what’s that got to do with art?” Capra knew filmmakers “just can’t forget sexuality,” yes, but believed they should approach it with reverence:
It is part of everyday living. It is part of what we live with, and it is part of the great joy of living. I don’t think we could eliminate it. I don’t think we can downgrade it, nor do I think we should defile it. And when you see explicit sex scenes on the screen, they are defiling one of the most wondrous things any human being can experience.
It is a fallacy to claim that directors need the freedom to be explicit to reveal the true experience of human life. Anyone who has seen Waterloo Bridge, The Lost Weekend, Paths of Glory, or The Miracle Worker—all released during the supposedly repressive production code era—knows that romance, sin, alcoholism, war, and disability can be depicted on screen with excellence and realism, while respecting the moral sensibilities of its audience. And beautiful films like Tender Mercies and Of Gods and Men are still being made, despite industry pressure to sanction immorality in scripts.
There is no conflict between high standards and great art, but there is between destructive entertainment and the good life—and Christians should be the first to proclaim that.
William Doino Jr. is a contributor to Inside the Vatican magazine, among many other publications, and writes often about religion, history and politics. He contributed an extensive bibliography of works on Pius XII to The Pius War: Responses to the Critics of Pius XII. His previous “On the Square” articles can be found here.
RESOURCES
Peter Bogdanovich: “What if Movies are Part of the Problem?”—The Hollywood Reporter-July 25, 2012
The Hollywood Reporter: “Reflections on ‘The Dark Night Rises’ Tragedy”—July 25, 2012
“How Aurora Changed ‘The Dark Night Rises’”—The Atlantic online—July 31, 2012
“The Dark Night Rises: Everybody Knows the Culture is Poisonous, and Nobody Expects that to Change,” Peggy Noonan, Wall Street Journal, July 28, 2012
USCCB Changes Rating on “Brokeback Mountain” to Morally Offensive, Lifesite News—December 16, 2005
Vatican Paper Deplores Exploitation in Films, Catholic World News—September 14, 1999
“Vatican Paper Pays Tribute to 1969 Hippie Film, ‘Easy Rider,’ Takes Swipe at Hays Code, Catholic World News—April 3, 2009
Frank Capra: Interviews, edited by Leland Poague (University Press of Mississippi, 2004).
Pope Pius XI’s Encyclical on Motion Pictures, Vigilanti Cura--1936
Pope Pius XII’s Encyclical on Movies and the Comunnications Field, Miranda Prorsus--1957
“Ethical Responsibilities in Art,” Pope John Paul II, May 6, 1981
John Paul II Addresses Hollywood, New York Times, September 17, 1987
Pornography and Violence in the Communications Media: A Pastoral Response, Pontifical Council for Social Communications—May 7, 1989
“‘Dark Night’ and the Soul: The Catholic Church’s Prophetic Warnings About the Toxic Effects of Cinematic Violence,” by Dawn Eden, The Dawn Patrol—July 24, 2012
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
I used to go to the movies a lot -- and I still am devoted to the TCM movie channel-- but it saddens me to go to movies today. Usually, I feel like an odd duck -- like the Emperor's new clothes -- am I the only person who felt assaulted when they watched The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo? There was no sense of 'triumph' when the 'heroine' in turn, assaulted 'even worse' the one who had assaulted her.
Then I watch an old movie -- Capra's films in particular -- wherein a light is shining in the eyes of the actors -- that even in spite of another's greed or fear or "class struggle" -- there is always goodness shining in the light of his actors and it gets contagious. When it's not there -- in the eyes of George Bailey's mom 'if he hadn't been born' -- the world is a horrible dark place wherein distrust is high and virtue is absent.
There is nothing sexier than watching Jean Arthur and James Stewart in "You Can't Take it With You' as they share the love they have for each other and it's all awkwardness and glowing and lovely and hurt feelings and forgiveness. They can't keep their hands or eyes off each other, yet there is this tension that is drenched in their goodwill for one another. And this without any music to 'cue' us into what we're supposed to be feeling during those scenes. So very lovely. So very missing in today's films.
A steady flux of violence DOES desensitive. A few years ago, I remember my very pacificist son, sat down to begin a video game that he had longed to get because he'd heard how great it was to play. After an hour, I asked him how it was going, and he looked at me in chagrin: "Mom, it was hard to get used to actually killing people. It felt awful at first. then -- you know what? -- I got used to it. Not sure how I feel about doing something on the game that I would never do in real life." (I think it was a Star Wars jedi game -- we are huge Star Wars fans)
Mind you, this didn't stop him from 'graduating' onto other games and online gaming -- like Worlds of Warcraft, Diablo, etc. By that time, he was an adult and on his own in every way. The thing is -- he takes time to study the bible every night with his wife, prays constantly, and he is a calm loving responsible Christian man. There are millions like him and more are being formed every day.
The devil knows that the only way to increase the addiction is to 'amp it up' -- whether it be more drinks, drinks, cigarettes, sex games, violent video, cuss words. Some, I suppose, can be exposed to it and walk away unscathed. Others make it their reality. The addiction to violence is one that really needs to be addressed -- but where is the support to do it like an AA system?
And my husband wonders why I pray the Divine Office throughout the day... Our Lord Himself said that demons can only be removed via prayer and fasting.
Though not the work of Nolan, this point was also illustrated wonderfully in the Hunger Games. The whistle of the bird is the only thing that can communicate the message of salvation – precisely because it blends in to the scenery; it is heard only by those who have ears to hear. The message must be masked. Incidentally, the mask is exactly what Batman tells John Blake aka Robin that he must wear if he is going to be in this fight. Did you notice that? The faithful disciple, who is also the one who heralds Batman’s return, is named John – and John’s symbol is a…bird. Sound familiar? Coincidence? Remember, if you are going to be in this line of work, you cannot believe in coincidence.
The Batman trilogy of Christopher Nolan is a Christian allegory. Not just that – perhaps the best Christian allegory ever put to film. I first noticed this in The Dark Knight which magnificently portrays the political message of the Gospel: there is a people that need saving and the one person who is actually noble and just enough to save them is branded a murderer and expelled from the city. Meanwhile, the peace of the city is secured through a lie in which the people demand the pharisaical murderer as an idol and call for the capture and death of the true savior. Go back to Batman Begins and you’ll find a movie also riddled with Christian allegory. You’ll need only to remember the last scene: the South East CORNER of Wayne manor has been destroyed; Bruce vows to rebuild it. Though the allegory in the first two parts of the trilogy is more veiled, Nolan makes it a point to hit the viewer over the head with it in the final installment. Yes, this makes it all the more frustrating that so many movie reviewers, especially the Catholic ones, just don’t get it. Rather than continue this blog in the narrative form, I wish to provide a brief guide for the viewer to unveil the Christian richness in the Dark Knight Rises which is, in many ways, a re-presentation of John’s Gospel and the Book of Revelation."
The City of Bruce Wayne and home to his people he must save. Wayne dwells in Gotham but the question often arises: is Wayne Manor even in Gotham? The guilt of Wayne’s beloved city is a central theme. It is Gotham that drives Batman out and choses the pharisaical murderer, Harvey Dent in his place : as Ms. Tate notes, “innocence is a strong word to throw around Gotham.” Nevertheless, Gotham remains worth saving to Batman even if he must give everything, even his life, to save it.
Bruce Wayne: The Eternal Logos, Second Person of the Blessed Trinity and Man.
1) He possesses the wealth of his father and remains Gotham’s watchful and invisible ordering principle and protector.
2) Wayne also represents Man as such, viz. Prodigal Son, best exemplified in Dark Knight Rises when he separates from Alfred, the Father, and wakes up the next day to find himself penniless. This is also exhibited by Nolan in the first scenes Batman Begins when Wayne, as a child, falls while in the garden with the woman (young Rachael). In the end of Batman Begins, he and Rachael are restored to union in a new garden.
Batman: Jesus,The Incarnate Word. The man, condescends to join natures with a lower being, the Bat-Man, ie. the Man-God. He returns to save the city after 8 years (8th day being the day of resurrection). He gives everything to save Gotham and ultimately endows the city with his limitless wealth.
The Bat Symbol: The Cross, a sign of fear, must be lifted up to save the city.
Alfred: God The Father and Joseph
1) God the Father: A constant theme in The Dark Knight Rises is the will of Alfred for his beloved son, Bruce. It is Alfred who does not want to watch Wayne die but understands the mission at hand to save the people. Ultimately all that is Bruce Wayne’s is given to Alfred in addition to providing a home for the orphans. The final scene of the movie finds Wayne, his new bride in a new place, reunited with Alfred.
2) A Joseph Figure: Foster Father of the Son and the just man of old concerned with burying him.
Selina Kyle (Cat Woman): A Mary Figure.
1) Mary Magdelene: The harlot who is saved from attack by batman and reluctantly chooses to follow him rather than Bane. Wanting only “the clean slate,” she is also the first witness to the resurrection of Batman.
2) The Woman: Her turning point in the movie comes when she is eating a stolen APPLE, and then throws it away and agrees to follow Batman who is trusting her a second time. 3) Mary (the Church): First appearing as Wayne’s handmaiden, her weapon is in the sharp heel (cf. Genesis 3:15) and she is ultimately the one to crush the head of Bane. Before the ultimate saving plan is accomplished, Batman instructs her to stay with John and “be on the ground” while he is in the air. Ultimately, in the new land, she is also the new bride of Wayne, united to him under the delighted gaze of Alfred, the Father.
Bane: The Anti-Christ (the beast).
Appearing to Gotham as it’s savior, he bears the sign of Batman and offers poisoned hope to the people. An excommunicated member of the league, he comes preaching liberation and social justice, but his ultimate motive is the death of Batman and the ruin of the city. He is the rejected son of Ra’s al Ghul (Lucifer) and the one who props up Miranda Tate, the whore of Babylon. (cf. Revelation 17:3). Those, such as Daggett, who seek to serve Baine are ultimately find themselves condemned in Jacobin fashion. He and Tate taunt Batman with the thought of making him watch the “fire of 12 million souls [he] failed.” With Ra’s al Ghul, and the Joker, Bane serves Nolan’s allegory as the third representation of evil, thus exemplifying the demonic parody of the Blessed Trinity.
Ra’s al Ghul: Lucifer.
Bruce Wayne must undergo his trials to become Batman and save the city which is first accomplished by defeating him. “Ra’s al Ghul” is literally translated in Arabic as “the Demon’s head.” He is the Father of the whore of Babylon (Miranda Tate).
Miranda Tate (Talia al Ghul): The Whore of Babylon and The world.
Under the guise of clean, unlimited energy, Miranda Tate explicitly wants to save the world and bring balance to it. Ultimately, she is found to be the Daughter of the Devil (Ra’s al Ghul), coming propped up on a beast, Bane, (Revelation 17:2) and will pierce the side of Batman and attempt to put Wayne’s city in fire for him to watch burn. The Whore also is said to fornicate with the kings (Wayne) of the earth (cf. Revelation 17). Wayne trusts her, knowing she will betray him. Upon her embrace of Wayne (the man), the light turns to darkness and Wayne expresses that he has ‘lost his power.‘ After sleeping with her, Wayne sees that she has the mark on her back.
John Blake aka Robin: John the Baptist and John the Beloved
1) The Baptist: John Blake is the first to recognize Batman as Bruce Wayne and herald his coming because ‘he knew him as a child.‘ He is irascible and upsets the hierarchy by pointing out their error and encourages the city to hope in Batman’s return.
2) The Beloved: The disciple that is favored over his superior (Peter Foley) and elevated to the status of detective. His sign is that of a bird and he stands before Batman’s ultimate sacrifice with Cat Woman. Unlike Peter Foley, who dies after his conversion in battle, John Blake remains alive. Ultimately, he will return to the cave, foster the orphans, and tell the story. Along with Selina Kyle (Mary), John Blake is the only character outside of Alfred and Fox (The First and Third Persons of the Blessed Trinity) to recognize that Batman is Wayne and follow him to the end of his mission.
The police: The Church and clergy.
The three most prominent policeman in the Dark Knight Rises are named Peter Foley, Jim Gordon, and John Blake. Yes, Peter, James, and John. Here the allegory loosens especially with the character of Jim Gordon who throughout the trilogy is a Peter figure. The reader will remember in the Dark Knight, even Gordon, the trusty disciple of Batman, draws his weapon in protest of what Batman must do to defeat the Joker. In the Dark Knight Rises, Gordon first recognizes Batman when he is walking out onto the water (which is ice). Batman comes walking towards him over the water and commands him to light up the bat sign (the cross) to give the city hope of salvation. Gordon’s role in the salvation of Gotham is essential. He must go along for the final ride with Tate (the world) to disable the device of destruction and crash through the gates of the underworld as he leads the rest of the police force to assisting the Bat Man in his saving mission. His final profession of faith is to recognize that the pierced Batman, now ascending, is indeed Bruce Wayne.
The US Army: The Angels. They are put at the opposite side of the bridge to prevent any man from passing to salvation before Batman has saved the city. They can deliver assistance and offer support to Gotham but ultimately must wait in hope for the saving plan of Batman to be accomplished.
Lucius Fox: The Holy Spirit
It is through the power of Mr. Fox that Bruce Wayne is incarnate as the Batman. His constant support offers Batman the tools he needs to defeat the enemy and he remains a trusty overseer of the board. He is sent to remain with Ms. Tate (the world) and notably exclaims in the film’s climax, the power of “a little air support.” The ‘Pentecost’ in the movie occurs when the police (Church) are noticeably timid and confused while marching into their battle mission. Unexpectedly, Fox’s vehicle, the Bat Wing drops from the sky and disables the enemy’s artillery. The inspired police then rush triumphantly into battle. Shout out, Filioque: Batman is propelling the Wing.
Now I’m sure that we could watch The Dark Knight Rises a multitude of times and not exhaust the symbology – and I welcome you to do so and share your insight. Needless to say, the allegory is deliberate and overt. It takes many forms in each of Nolan’s films, but this is the most manifest example. And before the naysayers naysay, we will remind them that all allegory, as such, will fail at some point; no allegory is perfect, or it wouldn’t be an allegory. Nevertheless, it is advisable that Catholic should see this movie at least twice and take a page out of Nolan’s evangelization playbook. This IS the new evangelization: to respond to the crises of modernity and administer the Gospel in a mode that is potent and culturally receivable. One can google Nolan’s religious beliefs and find a striking lack of anything on his faith opinions – for now, he must wear the mask in order for the salvific ideas to be received by a sleepy and errant people. But as a Catholic, I would like to thank him for his very good work in the vineyard of the Lord. As the same people gobbled up a man named Jesus, not knowing he was God, and so were saved, so may this culture ingest the art of Christopher Nolan, not knowing it is indeed Sacred.
An unfortunate generalization from a brief period late in the Office for Film & Broadcasting history.
For decades the OFB continued the work of the Legion of Decency with moral integrity and critical insight, first under Henry Herx, then Gerri Pare. Thousands of reviews were produced during this period which remain, along with the catalogue of Legion of Decency reviews, a valuable, even unparalleled resource to Catholics and other Christians.
For a few years toward the end the OFB was run by a man whose reviews of films from Brokeback Mountain and The Golden Compass created such scandal that the film office was reorganized as part of Catholic News Service rather than the USCCB Department of Communications, so that reviews would no longer bear the seeming imprimatur of the bishops' name. This newly reorganized film office is now producing reviews that are very conservative — at times arguably reactionary.
I also find this notion of a "golden age" highly questionable. Who is to say that movies and television programs from 50 or 60 years ago were better, and based on what criteria? One could argue that contemporary filmmakers display a much broader range of creativity than in the in previous generations. Mr. Doino makes the argument (contrary to conventional wisdom) that severe restrictions on artistic expression actually allow for better art.
Hence, my final point. Violence (as well as sex) is part of the human condition, and storytelling is one very important way that we try to make sense of such things. Therefore, I would prefer that filmmakers show me more realistic depictions of violence, than insult my intelligence by concealing or sanitizing it. I want to know, as closely as possible, what the landing on Omaha Beach was like, for example. Filmmakers should not deceive audiences. The question should not be whether filmmakers should depict violence, or how much, or to what degree, but in what moral context. Is the filmmaker being honest about the consequences, motivations and rationalizations for violent actions? In some cases, depictions of violence may be pure escapism, with no clear moral dimension. That is another matter altogether.
I am involved in just this topic of discussion elsewhere, and was actually called a "prude" by a woman who took issue with the fact that I held to my standards. I monitor what I and my family view, listen to and partake of. As Catholics we are held to (and should always expect) a higher moral standard.
Since we live in a hedonistic culture we must be ever vigilant. We "are what we eat." God bless :)
I mean, look at the book of Genesis. It is full of murder, incest, rape, lying, cheating, adultery, and all sorts of violent and sexual content. Why then is the book of Genesis not immoral or harmful? Because the CONTEXT of all of that is entirely moral.
So I am not disturbed by the violence in movies so much as the gratuitousness of it all. The violent content has an amoral or immoral context. Saying movies should be less violent is missing the point. Saying that modern art has lost its moral center would be more to the point.
Interesting analysis. A couple of other minor examples of Christian allegory/analogies in Batman: (1) After having his body broken by Bane, Wayne is taken to a prison, which was earlier referred to as "hell" - a fairly clear reference to Christ's descent into Hades. (2) Wayne also falls three times before making the leap that ultimately enables him to "rise" (he falls twice in failing to make the jump and then once more when he stumbles before his successful jump). Neither observation adds more than minor support to your analysis, but I thought they were interesting parts of the movie.
I enjoyed reading your post. I will keep it in mind the next time I watch the movies.
Because if we have a debt crisis, which is just around the corner, then all those programs that people organize their lives around, their retirements around, are going to be broken promises, and we’re going to have severe disruption in peoples’ lives. That’s what happens when you have a debt crisis.
