Did anyone know there was a "Vatican's Top 45 films" list?

[Foggy]

Created in 1995 to celebrate 100 years of filmmaking. They released a list 45 films that need to be seen based on three categories, here it is:

Religion

• Andrei Rublev (1966, Tarkovsky)
• Babette's Feast (1987, Axel)
• Ben-Hur (1959, Wyler)
• The Flowers of St. Francis (1950, Rossellini)
• Francesco (1989, Cavani)
• The Gospel According to St. Matthew (1966, Pasolini)
• La Passion De Notre Seigneur Jesus-Christ (1905, Zecca & Nonguet)
• A Man of All Seasons (1966, Zinnemann)
• The Mission (1986, Joffé)
• Monsieur Vincent (1947, Cloche)
• Nazarin (1958, Buñuel)
• Ordet (1954, Dreyer)
• The Passion of Joan of Arc (1928, Dreyer)
• The Sacrifice (1986, Tarkovsky)
• Therese (1986, Cavalier)

Values

• Au Revoir les Enfants (1988, Malle)
• Bicycle Thieves (1949, Sica)
• The Burmese Harp (1956, Ichikawa )
• Chariots of Fire (1981, Hudson)
• The Decalogue (1988, Kieślowski)
• Dersu Uzala (1975, Kurosawa)
• Gandhi (1982, Attenborough)
• Intolerance (1916, Griffith)
• It's a Wonderful Life (1946, Capra)
• On the Waterfront (1954, Kazan)
• Rome, Open City (1945, Rossellini)
• Schindler's List (1993, Spielberg)
• The Seventh Seal (1956, Bergman)
• The Tree of Wooden Clogs (1978, Olmi)
• Wild Strawberries (1957, Bergman)

Art

• Citizen Kane (1941, Wells)
• 8 1/2 (1963, Fellini)
• Fantasia (1940, Armstrong, Algar, Roberts, Satterfield, Sharpsteen, Hand, Luske, Handley, Beebe, Hee, Ferguson & Jackson)
• Grand Illusion (1937, Renoir)
• La Strada (1954, Fellini)
• The Lavender Hill Mob (1951, Crichton)
• The Leopard (1963, Visconti)
• Little Women (1933, Cukor)
• Metropolis (1927, Lang)
• Modern Times (1936, Chaplin)
• Napoleon (1927, Gance)
• Nosferatu (1922, Murnau)
• Stagecoach (1939, Ford)
• 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968, Kubrick)
• The Wizard of Oz (1939, Fleming)

So does the Vatican's approval make you want to watch these films? Do you agree with their listings? Any notable omissions? And if they were to revive the list today, what would like to see omitted or included?

[jscoggins]

Yes, and they review movies on a regular basis, too.

[spectre08]

those are really great lists.

I'm really glad to see Pasolini's Gospel included. When I opened the thread I questioned for a moment whether it would be excluded.

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by jscoggins

Yes, and they review movies on a regular basis, too.

Just flicked through a couple of their reviews, they pretty awful. Just plot run through which either begin or end with something critical being what offended them.

The best one is where they deem Ex Machina "Morally Offensive" as their final rating.

[jscoggins]

Originally Posted by Foggy

The best one is where they deem Ex Machina "Morally Offensive" as their final rating.

It's the Vatican. They're going to take a moral stand on art and not just appraise it based on aesthetics.

[spectre08]

Originally Posted by Foggy

Just flicked through a couple of their reviews, they pretty awful. Just plot run through which either begin or end with something critical being what offended them.

The best one is where they deem Ex Machina "Morally Offensive" as their final rating.

Ex Machina is a great movie, but morally offensive is probably an accurate description. loved it.

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by jscoggins

It's the Vatican. They're going to take a moral stand on art and not just appraise it based on aesthetics.

I don't mind ratings in mind of bible ruling. But morally offensive over some nudity is a pretty shallow, they didn't even look at it in context of the story.

I'd understand "Morally Offensive" over stuff like Crank 2, which is literally nothing but depravity. But nudity is natural, and the film uses it for a purpose, not explotation.

[spectre08]

Originally Posted by Foggy

I don't mind ratings in mind of bible ruling. But morally offensive over some nudity is a pretty shallow, they didn't even look at it in context of the story.

I'd understand "Morally Offensive" over stuff like Crank 2, which is literally nothing but depravity. But nudity is natural, and the film uses it for a purpose, not explotation.

it's also morally offensive because only God can create life, and Nathan has become God. The movie is blasphemous by its very nature.

[schan1269]

Originally Posted by spectre08

it's also morally offensive because only God can create life, and Nathan has become God. The movie is blasphemous by its very nature.

You should see their reviews on every Frankenstein movie.

[spectre08]

What I've always found interesting about the Vatican, and we're talking present day not historically, is that they're generally not "anti-science." Vatican scientists have done ground breaking work in cosmology, astronomy, physics, evolution, genetics, and many other fields of study. The Church accepts that the universe it billions of years old, that humans evolved from apes, and that there probably is extra terrestrial life in the universe.

But creating life, even AI, is a firm no-go.

[jscoggins]

By the way, Foggy, I think you found the movie review published by the Catholic News Service, which is NOT the Vatican.

[spectre08]

Originally Posted by jscoggins

By the way, Foggy, I think you found the movie review published by the Catholic News Service, which is NOT the Vatican.

this is a fair distinction. The CNS is a branch of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, and as we are well aware American christianity is.... different. Even Catholics.

[AaronJ]

Those lists are impressive. Granted, there are a number of them -- especially in the Religion category -- that I have not seen. But of the ones I have, I'm impressed.

The Art list isn't much like what my list would be, but I also understand why the Vatican might not include a film like Pandora's Box or Mulholland Dr.

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by jscoggins

By the way, Foggy, I think you found the movie review published by the Catholic News Service, which is NOT the Vatican.

Fair enough, it's the first bit in Google so I took them as one of the same.

[Al_The_Strange]

Of the films that I've seen from this list, I agree that they're well-crafted and have important messages worth seeing. I can see why the Vatican approves.

As far as the things the Vatican disapproves of...well, they can say whatever they want, because they have a point, but to reject movies this way has always felt rather close-minded to me.

Ex Machina is sci-fi; it's supposed to challenge traditional beliefs of creationism and make the viewer ponder the big "what if" scenario behind building an artificial consciousness. If anything, I think by

[Show spoiler]having Ava turn on everybody and escape

, the film proved that it's a dangerous path we probably shouldn't embark on (and the theme was further explored when the characters compared their work to that of Openheimer). The movie didn't glorify or condone AI creation, so what's the problem?

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

Of the films that I've seen from this list, I agree that they're well-crafted and have important messages worth seeing. I can see why the Vatican approves.

As far as the things the Vatican disapproves of...well, they can say whatever they want, because they have a point, but to reject movies this way has always felt rather close-minded to me.

Ex Machina is sci-fi; it's supposed to challenge traditional beliefs of creationism and make the viewer ponder the big "what if" scenario behind building an artificial consciousness. If anything, I think by

[Show spoiler]having Ava turn on everybody and escape

, the film proved that it's a dangerous path we probably shouldn't embark on (and the theme was further explored when the characters compared their work to that of Openheimer). The movie didn't glorify or condone AI creation, so what's the problem?

As was pointed out, that review wasn't from the Vatican, but from a publication of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. If you follow their rantings at all, you'll find that they have more trouble with Rome than ANYONE! And their opinions concerning this particular Pope are ... well, "out there" barely starts to cover it.

[spectre08]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

Of the films that I've seen from this list, I agree that they're well-crafted and have important messages worth seeing. I can see why the Vatican approves.

As far as the things the Vatican disapproves of...well, they can say whatever they want, because they have a point, but to reject movies this way has always felt rather close-minded to me.

Ex Machina is sci-fi; it's supposed to challenge traditional beliefs of creationism and make the viewer ponder the big "what if" scenario behind building an artificial consciousness. If anything, I think by

[Show spoiler]having Ava turn on everybody and escape

, the film proved that it's a dangerous path we probably shouldn't embark on (and the theme was further explored when the characters compared their work to that of Openheimer). The movie didn't glorify or condone AI creation, so what's the problem?

I think you're expected more than just a surface level review. I agree with you though, if you really ponder the big metaphysical questioned raised by the film I think it absolutely serves as a cautionary tale.

[schan1269]

Aren't all (so far) AI films cautionary?

Even if you add human to machine(Lucy, Transcendence, Zero Theorem, etc)...there is always the presumptive "we shouldn't".

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by schan1269

Aren't all (so far) AI films cautionary?

Even if you add human to machine(Lucy, Transcendence, Zero Theorem, etc)...there is always the presumptive "we shouldn't".

Spielberg's Pinocchio movie was pretty easy going on the whole evil robot thing.

[Rav3n]

Originally Posted by jscoggins

It's the Vatican. They're going to take a moral stand on art and not just appraise it based on aesthetics.

Yet 2001 is fine...