Harry Forbes responds, defends his review...

... of "The Golden Compass." From the Fairfield County Catholic newspaper:

"I think people were expecting a really bad review from us because of all of the build-up prior to the opening, so they mistakenly characterized our review as a rave. It's not," Forbes says. "In fact, I don't think many people actually read our review. So many of the writers began their e-mails with, 'I understand that' or 'I have heard that you have written a positive review,' and they're off."

Ah, another argument for not having Forbes as a reviewer: not many people actually read his reviews. Regardless, my criticisms of the review were based on actually reading it.

Forbes has a point. While the OFB review appreciates the quality of the acting in this "exciting adventure story," it states clearly the problem with the source material: "the author's professed atheism, and the more overt issue of the novels' negative portrayal of his (very much fictionalized) church, a stand-in for all organized religion."

"The good news," the review continued, "is that the first book's explicit references to this church have been completely excised, with only the term 'Magisterium' retained . . . . Most moviegoers with no foreknowledge of the books or Pullman's personal belief system will scarcely be aware of religious connotations, and can approach the movie as a pure fantasy-adventure. This is not the blatant real-world anti-Catholicism of, say, the recent Elizabeth: The Golden Age or The Da Vinci Code. Religious elements, as such, are practically nil" ("as nearly all the professional critics, secular and Catholic, noted," Forbes adds).

Read Steven Greydanus's excellent review for a good response to this line of thought.

Passing Judgment

"It is not our place to pass judgment on the books," Forbes elaborates.

But why not?

"We absolutely referenced the controversy. From the lead paragraph we kept reinforcing the fact that the movie was very different from the source material. If, in fact, the film had been a more faithful adaptation, the review and classification would have been very different."

As an example, Forbes cites the 2005 film adaptation of The Da Vinci Code, which earned the OFB's worst rating, an "O" classification.

"Right up to the last minute with The Da Vinci Code, we were hoping that the name 'Opus Dei' would be changed to something fictitious; that the divinity of Christ would not be questioned; that viewers' religious sensibilities would be respected; and that all the pseudo-spiritual baloney would be excised. If it had been, the movie could have received a better classification. It was not an automatic O, despite the book."

Nonetheless, in the published review, Forbes chastised Director Ron Howard and the producers: "It does seem irresponsible of all parties involved not to have changed the name of Opus Dei in light of the obvious falsehoods, or even provided some kind of disclaimer." ]

So, why not challenge The Golden Compass makers on keeping the name Magisterium in the film?

"Well, Opus Dei is a proper name, and as such, can only mean one thing," Forbes says in his defense. "Apart from the fact that the term 'magisterium' is one that virtually nobody knows, I've heard the director claim that magisterium, if you study its roots, has other meanings. Frankly, we're not aware of any, but even the press notes for the film define the word as merely a 'government council.'

Wow. This is unbelievably naive. You know that the word "Magisterium" is used in the books to bash the Catholic Church and the word "Magisterium" is, in the real world, associated only with the Catholic Church—but since the director vaguely argues that it's meaning has been somehow, miraculously, changed, you'll just go with his objective, unbiased, and sincere remarks. Huh?

"You can disconnect a film from its source, even if the source has a very different meaning," Forbes continues. "If they are claiming that, in this fictitious parallel universe they have created, the word magisterium means a government council, so be it. In the same way, their use of the word 'daemon' doesn't mean a satanic demon. In their vocabulary, it means a disembodied animal soul."

That's because it is based on ancient Greek mythology. It's not "their" vocabulary; it's a very different matter from the use of the word "Magisterium."

Ah well. Read it and share your thoughts—charitably, even if critical.

Comments

[Cristina A. Montes]

About Forbes' point on the books and/or movies being a possible "teaching moment" -- this may well be (although I'm debating whether this is a good reason to allow kids to read the books or watch the movie), but nevertheless, isn't it the job of the USCCB to provide the "teaching aids"?

And about the movie -- a friend of mine who was dragged into watching it described it to me, and from his description, I get the impression that the movie lacks "intelligent design".

[Mark Brumley]

Besides, the ex-nun character isn't from a parallel world, but is supposed to be from our world. So this isn't simply about a fictional, alternate universe. It's about our world, too. And the being Christians (and Jews) worship as God in our world.

There is so much nonsense in his comment one hardly knows where to begin to reply.

[Gail]

I wouldn't have written the review that way, but it seemed to me (yes, I read it) that it was meant to convey the point that IF YOU SEE IT, your eternal soul will not be in jeapardy. It seemed to assume that people might see it without realizing the source.

I think Stephen Greydanus handled it much better by saying the same thing, but adding that it is impossible to separate the movie from the source because people who see it might then read the books. But I don't think the USCCB's review deserved as much bad press as it got. It's not what it should have been, but it's not as stupid as many people make it out to be.

Gail Finke

[MarkAA]

Reviews from the USCCB should be highly focused on the moral content and how the movies factor into the viewer's (assumed to be Catholic) eternal salvation and relationship with God. Not on artistic merit.

Sorry, I work in media and read a lot, and if I want to read about artistic merit or interesting story line, I can turn to 99 secular publications. I want to know morally whether the movie is worthy of a Catholic or Christian watching. Tell me that up front, with no waffling or dithering: Is it good, morally edifying and helpful for building up my Christian faith, or not. The bishops, the shepherds of the flock, need to be that source, period.

Phl 4:8 Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable-if anything is excellent or praiseworthy-think about such things.

... and don't waste your time with things that aren't.

[Ed Peters]

Forbes just doesn't get it. His unsuitability for this post is obvious. What is less clear is why the bishops even think they have the qualifications to find someone with the qualifications to fill this post. The private sector is much more efficient at finding people who know enough to do this work correctly. All you have to do is read Greydanus.

[Mark Brumley]

What Ed said.

[MarkAA]

Ed,
I'm not sure I'm understanding you properly. Are you honestly saying the Bishops really aren't capable of using their own reason and the guidance of the Holy Spirit to find a reviewer who can uphold the Catholic faith while providing worthwhile reviews? I'd submit they're as capable of doing that as any intelligent person, but they just *haven't* -- perhaps because they haven't made it a high-enough priority. This is one decision I wouldn't want the private sector deciding; I want the shepherds in the unbroken line from the apostles to make the call as part of their pastoral responsibilities. Let's encourage them to make finding someone appropriate for the role a high priority ... perhaps suggest even the hiring of Mr. Greydanus. :)

[Carl Olson]

This is one decision I wouldn't want the private sector deciding; I want the shepherds in the unbroken line from the apostles to make the call as part of their pastoral responsibilities.

I don't think Ed was suggesting the bishops have the private sector (aka, the laity) decide who will be the USCCB reviewer. Rather, I think he is saying (as I would also say) that there shouldn't even be an USCCB reviewer, but that competent lay people/the private sector should be writing reviews. Put another way, the bishops should focus on teaching Catholic doctrine and let the laity apply it to and in the world of culture, the arts, etc.

[Ed Peters]

Right guys.

[Ray from MN]

The NY Times Book Review section lists "His Dark Materials " as No. 1 on its "Series Category" for Children's Books for the third week.

How many people purchased the book based on the positive review frm the USCCB? We can't say.

But how many children will become infatuated with the book given to them by their parents, will lose their faith and end up in Hell?

One is too many!

The USCCB is an arm of the Church and has a clear responsibility to teach Catholics about dangers to the Faith. There are hundreds of critics that can inform parents about "Great acting, stories and special effects."

The Church's role is teaching about salvation.