I generally steer clear from such dark and heavy big pictures, but after my Uncle named the movie #1 in his annual "Top 10 films of the year" list, I couldn't help to see what the fuss was all about. Don't worry, there is no *spoiler alert* needed for the following review, as basically nothing happens in the entire movie. Those who have seen the movie, you know what I'm talking about.
SO, let's delve in. The movie is set in the 1960's at a Catholic school in the Bronx. The entire plot is essentially a battle between a nun who suspects a priest of molesting one of the students at the school, and (obviously) the accused priest. The movie provides no proof either way, and jerks the viewer's allegiance back and forth between the opposing sides.
This trailer does an excellent job of giving you a good idea of what I am talking about if you have never seen the film:
For those of you who have seen the film: do you feel it affected your opinion of the Catholic church in a negative way? Were there elements of the film that could have created empathetic feelings toward accused members of the clergy?
I enjoyed reading this post. I have never seen the movie but understand it's basic premise.
Getting to your questions, I think that because the movie is set back in time it is helpful in not exploiting todays Catholic church. The church could argue that it was a different time and that they have made changes since then. I think everyone agrees, as much as we'd like not to, that the world is changing and it is become more difficult to be as religious as we once were. The time frame this was set in was one where we we just beginning to bridge that gap.
As far as schandenfreude, I don't think the viewing public enjoys movies that put other's down, I just believe that the Catholic church is a easy target because it is a world recognized institution. The movie does propagate stereotypes which would help it sell because there have been scares of mischief within the Catholic faith. Any move that confirms viewer's suspicions is going to do well.
The fact of the matter is, the writer didn't need to attack tender subject within the Catholic church to teach a lesson about uncertainty and doubt. We need to not be fooled by the documentary and realistic nature of this film and understand that the media areout to self products leaving anything the communicate to be taken lightely.
I think you raised some interesting ideas in this post. Particualarly about the sensitivity of the movie's subject matter regard molestation in the Catholic Church. I don't think audiences typically enjoy movies and other media when others that are different from us are put down, but I think that our curiosity my be peaked.
I think that at first glance at the movie we may be uncomfortable with its premise, but if we look deeper at the religious convictions of the characters in the film we may see it all differently. For instance at the end of the film Meryl Streep states that she has doubts--but when she states this she doesn't mean doubt in her faith or that the Father was guilty (because she was completely undoubted about those) but rather she doubted the Catholic Church and its leadership. I don't know what the Catholic Church as a whole believes about this film and its representation of its leadership and abuse. But I can't see that they appreciate it. But at the same time, the film is made in a way that wasn't meant to offend--it was made for entertainment and it showed the Church's past abuse in a different light.
I enjoyed reading this post. I have never seen the movie but understand it's basic premise.
ReplyDeleteGetting to your questions, I think that because the movie is set back in time it is helpful in not exploiting todays Catholic church. The church could argue that it was a different time and that they have made changes since then. I think everyone agrees, as much as we'd like not to, that the world is changing and it is become more difficult to be as religious as we once were. The time frame this was set in was one where we we just beginning to bridge that gap.
As far as schandenfreude, I don't think the viewing public enjoys movies that put other's down, I just believe that the Catholic church is a easy target because it is a world recognized institution. The movie does propagate stereotypes which would help it sell because there have been scares of mischief within the Catholic faith. Any move that confirms viewer's suspicions is going to do well.
The fact of the matter is, the writer didn't need to attack tender subject within the Catholic church to teach a lesson about uncertainty and doubt. We need to not be fooled by the documentary and realistic nature of this film and understand that the media areout to self products leaving anything the communicate to be taken lightely.
I think you raised some interesting ideas in this post. Particualarly about the sensitivity of the movie's subject matter regard molestation in the Catholic Church. I don't think audiences typically enjoy movies and other media when others that are different from us are put down, but I think that our curiosity my be peaked.
ReplyDeleteI think that at first glance at the movie we may be uncomfortable with its premise, but if we look deeper at the religious convictions of the characters in the film we may see it all differently. For instance at the end of the film Meryl Streep states that she has doubts--but when she states this she doesn't mean doubt in her faith or that the Father was guilty (because she was completely undoubted about those) but rather she doubted the Catholic Church and its leadership. I don't know what the Catholic Church as a whole believes about this film and its representation of its leadership and abuse. But I can't see that they appreciate it. But at the same time, the film is made in a way that wasn't meant to offend--it was made for entertainment and it showed the Church's past abuse in a different light.
Christina VanDerwerken Nelson