Nicole Kidman as Mrs. Coulter in The Golden Compass
Via Tim Drake's "U.S. Bishops Withdraw Controversial Movie Review" in the National Catholic Register:
"'The aggressively anti-religious, anti-Christian undercurrent in The Golden Compass is unmistakable and at times undisguised,' [Denver Archbishop Charles] Chaput wrote in a column in the Dec. 12 issue of the Denver Catholic Register. 'The wicked Mrs. Coulter alludes approvingly to a fictional version of the doctrine of original sin. When a warrior Ice Bear — one of the heroes of the story — breaks into the local Magisterium headquarters to take back the armor stolen from him, the exterior walls of the evil building are covered with Eastern Christian icons. And for Catholics in our own world, of course, "Magisterium" refers to the teaching authority of the Church — hardly a literary coincidence.'
"Commenting on the Office for Film and Broadcasting's review itself, Archbishop Chaput said, 'The idea that any Christian film critics could overlook or downplay these negative elements, as some have seemed to do, is simply baffling.'"
***
Days after Chris Weitz's The Golden Compass — the film adaptation of Philip Pullman's fantasy novel Northern Lights — opened in the United States to mixed reviews and underwhelming ticket sales, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops withdrew its positive review that had been posted on the Catholic News Service website and published in diocesan newspapers. According to Tim Drake, "this came following an outcry among Catholic faithful and bishops over New Line Cinema's use of the review as an endorsement for the controversial film."
Written by Harry Forbes and John Mulderig, the director and staff reviewer of the Office for Film and Broadcasting of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the review described The Golden Compass as "an exciting adventure story with, at its core, a traditional struggle between good and evil, and a generalized rejection of authoritarianism."
"For now," the review stated, "this film — altered, as it is, from its source material — rates as intelligent and well-crafted entertainment."
Drake adds that "neither Forbes nor the bishops' conference were willing to comment on the reason for the withdrawal."
Personally, I failed to get the point of Chris Weitz's screenplay — however "intelligent and well-crafted." All I know is that The Golden Compass is about a little girl trying to accomplish something. But what? What are the ideas at the core of Weitz's tedious, unmagical film? Question authority? Be kind to animals? Might makes right? Merchandising is God?
In any case, whether I or anyone else agree or disagree with Forbes and Mulderig's review of the film is irrelevant. What is disheartening is that censorship has been not only exercised but also condoned by some in the upper levels of the Catholic hierarchy. Their message — and only theirs — is allowed to be heard by those who are incapable of making up their own minds about the truth. Or about which movie to go see.
Now, though much has been written about The Golden Compass' box-office disappointment in the U.S., the fantasy film is doing remarkably well overseas, having earned more than US$90 million in 12 days. (Of course, the fact that the U.S. dollar is currently worth little more than toilet paper surely helps. Also, New Line apparently won't see much — or any — of that foreign revenue, as the studio sold off the film's foreign distribution rights.)
Suggested reading: An interesting chat between author Philip Pullman and Dr. Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Harry Forbes dropped the ball again concerning "Fool's Gold." He left out the brief nudity that occurred during the speedboat rescue, and the blatant endorsement of homosexual relationships throughout the film (the chefs on the yacht).
Another predatory homosexual?
Thanks for writing.
Although I can see your point, I can't say I agree with you.
This blog also has guidelines. For instance, bigotry is unacceptable. The Alternative Film Guide will not publish a review or commentary stating that X ethnic/religious/national/etc. group is inferior to Y group because of this or that holy book. Or simply because the author of the review has mental issues.
But if there's a movie I find offensive — filled with bigotry — but a contributor sees it differently ("it's not really pro-bigotry, it's actually anti-violence"), I'd have no right (or desire) to prevent the author from publishing his/her take on said film. And once published, I'd never have the review removed.
The U.S. bishops could easily have added a note to the "Golden Compass" review stating that Forbes and Mulderig's views were theirs alone, and that they did not reflect the bishops' own views. That would have solved the problem — New Line wouldn't be able to claim the bishops approved of their film — without the need to remove (i.e., censor) the "offensive" review.
No matter what the Office for Film and Broadcasting of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops says, Catholic moviegoers (those who think for themselves, that is) will see "The Golden Compass" in their own way.
Some will be offended by it; others will enjoy it; others will be bored to tears by it. Forbes and Mulderig's expressed *their* way of interpreting the film. That should be their right.
Regarding Forbes and Mulderig, this was not a case of censorship but rather of malfeasance.
As you noted, Harry Forbes and John Mulderig are "the director and staff reviewer of the Office for Film and Broadcasting of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops."
The bishops' website describes that office as follows: "The Office for Film and Broadcasting is responsible for reviewing and rating theatrical motion pictures, previewing and evaluating television programming as well as providing the Catholic public with information about the role of the entertainment and news media in influencing societal and personal values."
Catholics look to these reviews for guidance in making their entertainment choices for themselves and their families. As one would expect, once this review was published, news organizations ran stories saying the Catholic bishops liked the film, and the studio began planning a massive marketing campaign to Catholics.
If a film critic employed by a Quaker organization praised a shoot-em-up Schwarzenegger film or a PETA film critic praised a film in which animal torture is presented as fun, you would justly say that they aren't doing their jobs, and you would expect their bosses to take appropriate action. If a public relations director of a large corporation misrepresents his corporation's views or policies to the public, swift correction (and perhaps a firing) would follow.