U.S. Council of Bishops Film Ratings

Cafe Society
1

When I was a kid, I used to look through the Catholic newspaper we received weekly for the ratings of films by the U.S. Council of Bishops. This was long before the MPAA “G-M-R-X” rating system (the ancestor of the G-PG-PG-13-R-NC-17 system we have now), and I was always curious to see how they rated the films. Remember, this was before restrictions, so that all movies were effectively “G”. The Bishops’ ratings were:

**A-I -- Morally Unobjectionable for Anyone
    A-II -- Morally Unobjectionable for Adults and Adolescents
    A-III -- Morally Unobjectionable for Adults
    A-IV -- Morally Unobjectionable for Adults, with Reservations
    B -- Morally Objectionable in Part for Everyone
     C -- Condemned**

In my naivete, I thought A-IV meant that, if you were a grown-up, and you already had reservations to the theater, you could go, even though the bishops didn’t approve. I didn’t understand why there were separate B and C categories. If the film was objectionable in part for everyone, how was that different than “Condemned”.

Of course, the most interesting mocies were Condemned. The Killing of Sister George. Carnal Knowledge. A Clockwork Orange. Anything rated “X”.

In time, I came to resent the list – why should the bishops tell me what to see and what not to? Wasn’t avoiding films somehow immature itself? What was so awful about Anatom,y of a Murder? (discussion of rape, apparently).
Imagine my surprise to find that they’re still at it, and have a website:

http://www.usccb.org/movies/movieall.htm
They’ve gotten rid of the distinction between B and C films, and replaced that sexy “C” with “O” for “Objectionable”. I’m not surprised to see Caligula there, and Rocky Horror Picture Show. But The Terminator? And Terminator II? I still wonder about the Bishops, even when they get a chance to explain themselves, as they do on this site.

2

Just about all the James Bond movies are rated “O”.

Curiously, the Hannibal Lector films Manhunter and Silence of the Lambs are more acceptable, although they condemned Hannibal.

3

The Terminator movies-probably all the violence.

4

James Bond - I’m going to guess they object to the unmarried sex w/no consequences. And maybe the violence, but most of the violence is pretty cartoonish.

5

This guy is even nuttier than the Bishops. His system requires an advanced degree in nutcasery to even understand.

6

He notes under the “Sex/Homosexuality” listings, something called Belly Sin, but doesn’t explain what this is. What is it? Have I been missing out?

7

Well, let’s compare… Here is a film that did not get the big “O”…

And one, in the same vein, which did get the Objectionable rating…

It seems to me that the difference in rating is given a justifiable reason. You may not agree with it, but the increased gore and violence in Hannibal (and its less ambitious artistic goals) bumped it up a notch.

In fact, one should pleased that a critically acclaimed film like Silence of the Lambs was not judge Objectionable (or Condemned for that matter) by moralizing bishops. (Actually, I doubt any bishops contribute to the actual ratings, they simply established a panel of experts to do that for them under their aegis.)

Peace.

The post is rated “S” for “Sassy!”

8

Anything which glorifies violence will usually get an “O” rating. This explains the Terminator movies and the James Bond movies. (Bond also gets dinged for all that promiscuous sex.) Something like Saving Private Ryan, OTOH, gets an A-III (adults) rating.

Silence of the Lambs escaped with an “A-IV” because the violence, while it was pretty damn nasty in parts, wasn’t overdone. I haven’t seen Hannibal, but from what I’ve heard it’s pretty much a standard blood-and-guts slasher movie. Hence it gets the big O.

BTW: any ideas what the difference is between “profanity” and “rough language”? In my book those are synomyms.

9

Conservative Catholic here.

I happen to think that, unfortunately, church movie ratings simply subject the church to ridicule. And that’s a shame, because there IS a valid place for them.

Problem is, any valid rating system has to address two issues that are completely separate, even though people sometimes act as if they’re connected.

  1. Is the subject matter of this film appropriate for kids?

  2. Is the movie, ultimately, moral or immoral?

There are folks to whom a film is automatically immoral if it receives an “R” rating, if it shows a breast, if it contains one of George Carlin’s famous “7 words,” or if there’s any violence. I’m not one of them. I happen to think a film can show violence and/or sex graphically and still be quite moral. For that matter, even a film in which there are no characters with any redeeming features can be moral. Oh, it may be inappropriate for KIDS, but that’s a separate issue.

I would submit that many films that receive PG ratings are far more morally objectionable than films that receive R or NC-17 ratings. Example I’ve use before: “Pretty Woman” was rated PG, and features no nudity. “Boogie Nights” was rated NC-17, and only made it to R after several scenes were removed. Now, “Boogie Nights” certainly is not a film a kid should see, but I believe it’s far less morally objectionable than “Pretty Woman.” After all, “Boogie Nights” shows BOTH why the porn industry is attractive AND why it’s ultimately so destructive. “Pretty Woman,” on the other hand, tells kids “Prostitution is a glamorous life in which you stay at luxury hotels, go shopping on Rodeo Drive, and marry Donald Trump.”

Most church-affiliated film critics either don’t even try to grasp such distinctions. I’m pleased when they do, but that’s still a rarity.

I happen to agree, by the way, that “Hannibal” Was morally objectionable in a way that “Manhunter” and “Silence of the Lambs” were not. In the latter two films, Hannibal Lecter is a repulsive (if intriguing) character, and the audience is encouraged to root for the heroic FBI agent (Graham or Starling). In “Hannibal,” however, we’re clealry supposed to be rooting for Dr. Lecter, who is presented as far more admirable than any of the people trying to catch him.

A film that shows gory deaths isn’t necessarily immoral. One that glorifies them, and makes a hero of the man who commits them IS immoral.

10

Mmmm,

Now here a surprise;

Dogma – Because of anti-religious buffoonery, intense violence, sexual references, substance abuse, assorted vulgarities, profanity and recurring rough language, (O) – morally offensive. ® – restricted. Dogma is a sophomoric religious satire in which a heavenly messenger persuades the last descendant of Joseph and Mary to leave her job in an abortion clinic and set out to stop a pair of fallen angels from regaining heaven by means of a plenary indulgence. The unfunny proceedings rely on a mindless mix of irreverence and absurdity in poking fun at biblical characters and Christian stereotypes

11

It’s the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, not the U.S. Council of Bishops.

A film that was rated B, “Morally Objectionable in Part” could still be edited to remove the objectionable scenes, while a film that was rated C, “Condemned”, was thematically objectionable through and through.

The Conference has usually been morally sophiticated in its ratings, often more so than the MPAA. While the MPAA gave Midnight Cowboy an “X” rating in 1969, the Conference gave it an “A-IV” rating:

They also had quote good taste in movies. Witness their Ten Best list from 1972:

  1. The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie
  2. The Effect of Gamma Rays on Man-in-the-Moon Marigolds
  3. The Emigrants
  4. The Godfather
  5. Jeremiah Johnson
  6. My Uncle Antoine
  7. A Sense of Loss
  8. The Sorrow and the Pity
  9. Sounder
  10. What’s Up, Doc?

Or their Ten Best list from 1997:

  1. Amistad
  2. The Apostle
  3. The Ice Storm
  4. Kolya
  5. Kundun
  6. L.A. Confidential
  7. Shall We Dance?
  8. Ulee’s Gold
  9. The Wind in the Willows
  10. The Wings of the Dove
12

Well, one of the definitions of profane is…

And so, most likely profanity refers to taking God’s name in vain (religious ‘swear’ and ‘curse’ words) like ‘God damn it’ or ‘holy Jesus f***ing Christ.’

And rough language would be any non-religious vulgarities such as f*** and shit.

Religious-minded folk find profanity to be much more objectionable than rough language.

Peace.

Darn it all to heck you friggin A-holes!

13

Lest you folks think I’m trivializing this, or poking fun at the Catholic Church, I note that their reviews of many of the films are pretty insightful, and I note that my faves get pretty good ratings (A Man for All Seasons is A-I-- no surprise there. Forbidden Planet, The Day the Earth Stood Still.) Still, I am surprised by the high objections raised to many of these. The Terminator ratings still surprise me with the “O”. I would’ve thought that The Exorcist would be panned for its excesses and misrepresentations, but it’s A-IV (I believe). Exorcist II, however, gets an “O”.

And, while “Midnight Cowboy” may have gotten an “X” when originally released, I’ve heard frequently that it wouldn’t if released today. (More to the point, if it were in danger iof getting an “NC-17”, I;'m sure they would cut it to avoid that audience-killing rating). On the other hand, although it may get an A-IV from the bishops now, I could swear that I recall it originally getting a “Condemned” rating when it was released.

14

The Conference’s A-IV rating for Midnight Cowboy is from 1969. The X-rated Midnight Cowboy even made the Conference’s Ten Best list for 1969.

And the MPAA did revise Midnight Cowboy’s rating to “R” upon rerelease in 1971, without any cuts made.