New Line Cinema uses USCCB review to promote "The Golden Compass"

Thomas Peters of American Papist has broken the news about a new series of New Line Cinema ads for "The Golden Compass":

The ads link to www.GoldenCompassMovie.com. They originally stated, "'An exciting adventure story, entirely in harmony with Catholic teaching' — U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops." Peters writes:

First, the ad conflates the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the official leadership body of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States, with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' Office for Film and Broadcasting. They aren't the same.

But this first point is a minor complaint compared to this advertisement's claim, in quotation marks, that this movie is "An exciting adventure story entirely in harmony with church teaching".

This line never appears in the USCCB's Office for Film and Broadcasting review.

The actual quotation reads as follows (underlining mine):

To the extent, moreover, that Lyra and her allies are taking a stand on behalf of free will in opposition to the coercive force of the Magisterium, they are of course acting entirely in harmony with Catholic teaching.

(the previous part of the artificial quotation about the "exciting adventure story" appears elsewhere.)

He then asks,

So, are Catholic newspapers and publications going to cast their lot in with New Line on this one? Are the U.S. Bishops going to sit back and let New Line claim their wholehearted endorsement of a movie which contains "elements of the occult" and "anti-clerical subtext"?

Also, Jeff Miller discusses "New Lie Cinema."

Meanwhile, LifeSite reports that Fr. Tom Euteneuer, the President of Human Life International, and Pete Vere, co-author of Pied Piper of Atheism, are asking the U.S. Bishops to terminate the employment of Harry Forbes, the Director of the USCCB Office for Film and Broadcasting, who wrote the positive USCCB review of "The Golden Compass" (see my previous post on the subject). Forbes was also responsible for a glowing review of "Brokeback Mountain," the "love story" of two homosexual sheep herders.

• Visit www.AtheismForChildren.com, the website for Pied Piper of Atheism.

Comments

[Jackson]

After the glowing Brokeback Mountain review, exactly why was Forbes still around to write this one?

[Chris]

This is infuriating. Forbes should be fired, New Line should be sued for misquoting the review, and the USCCB's film office should condemn this movie in no uncertain terms.

[Mark Brumley]

It is outrageous that New Line Cinema's ad deceives folks by misusing the US Bishops. Neither the USCCB as an organization, nor the bishops of the United States as such, has said anything in support of THE GOLDEN COMPASS. This is a matter of a review by the head and a staff member of one department at the USCCB giving their opinion--and a lame opinion--of THE GOLDEN COMPASS. What's more, one version of the ad dishonestly conflated material from the review to make the review say more than it said.

Now in a sense the USCCB's Office of Film and Broadcast director and staffer got what was coming to them for essentially shilling for the film to begin with by overlooking the harm it can do. Whatever is or isn't in this film, the fact is, it is a two-hour film commercial for the His Dark Materials trilogy, which is anti-theistic, anti-Christian, and anti-Catholic. If the director of the USCCB's Office of Film and Broadcast lacks the discernment to see the evil of something like THE GOLDEN COMPASS, then he has no business writing movie reviews for an office of the USCCB and he shouldn't be surprised when his reviews are misused by Hollywood.

However, whatever criticisms one might make of the USCCB for allowing Mr. Forbes to continue in his post up til now, the fact is that the USCCB as such has not endorsed this film. The test for the USCCB will be whether those who oversee the Office of Film and Broadcast will act promptly to correct the record and criticize the film and its makers. The USCCB is on the hook for that.

[Phil Thegiues]

Still griping about a film? What's the point? Hasn't history shown that everytime special interest groups whine about a film or book or album all it serves to do is provide free publicity and help the controversial piece of work sell more units?

If New Line is smart, they are behind much of the Boycott drive against this film and are feeding Donohue and Ignatius materials about which to be "outrged."

BTW, here's an opposing viewpoint by a Catholic:

http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/feature/2007/12/04/compass/

Money quotes:
"If faith is so fragile that it can be shaken by the introduction of challenging ideas, what good is it? "

"Catholic Digest, the nation's largest magazine for Catholics, suggests parents use the film as a springboard to "encourage your children to reflect about the issues the book raises in a thoughtful and intelligent manner." A review from the venerable reporting agency Catholic News Service notes, "This is not the blatant real-world anti-Catholicism of, say, the recent 'Elizabeth: The Golden Age' or 'The Da Vinci Code' ... this film -- altered, as it is, from its source material -- rates as intelligent and well-crafted entertainment."

"I want my children to understand that human beings and institutions are fallible. That sometimes those who claim moral authority can traffic in corruption and abuse."

[dan sheehan]

Phil, I guess you didn't see the earlier dismantling of the Salon piece and its "Catholic" author.
The outcry against "Golden Compass" may indeed give the film and books plenty of free publicity but it may also lead some people to investigate a little further and --dare we hope? -- discover the truth about the Faith. This idea that Catholics should sit back and be silent while the Church is smeared and misrepresented is plain silly.

[Phil Thegiues]

No I didn't see your "dismantling". But it's irrelevant. I still think it's silly to be so concerned with a film when there are a thousand real threats in the world today.

The truth of this statement remains:
"If faith is so fragile that it can be shaken by the introduction of challenging ideas, what good is it? "

[Carl Olson]

Money quotes:

Those and $3.50 will get you a latte. I've already exposed the Salon.com piece for the sophistic nonsense it is.

I still think it's silly to be so concerned with a film when there are a thousand real threats in the world today.

Unless, I bet, the movie was based on, say, "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion". Then it would probably be different. It's "only a movie" when the target, whether overt or implicit, is the Catholic Church.

[Phil Thegiues]

I have two questions; First, have any actual Catholic Church representatives come out with statements about this film or the books? I know they issue denounciations of DaVinci Code, but so far, I see no evidence they have said anything against this film

Second, has anyone who is griping about the film actually seen it?

[R]

Phil, what does it matter? We Catholics can't have any opinion of any book, film, et cetera without an official proclamation from the Vatican? We shouldn't comment negatively on it at all? If you want to refute or attempt to refute any claims made about the books or movies (or Pullman himself), feel free; but 'shut up' is not intelligent discussion. Of course there are issues of more consequence that can be discussed, but that doesn't mean this isn't fair game for critique.

[Carl Olson]

Second, has anyone who is griping about the film actually seen it?

The posts that I've been writing about Pullman and related news have focused on his numerous public statements, his novels, and some of the pro-Pullman materials written by various Catholics. My only gripe is with folks who keep resorting to griping, whining, and name calling in response to legitimate concerns and questions about Pullman's books and the soon-to-be released movie.

[Phil Thegiues]

Sure it is Carl. I suppose that's why there's at least a dozen posts about the books and film on the front page of the blog. This is obviously the most important issue facing catholics today.

[Phil Thegiues]

Phil, what does it matter? We Catholics can't have any opinion of any book, film, et cetera without an official proclamation from the Vatican? We shouldn't comment negatively on it at all? If you want to refute or attempt to refute any claims made about the books or movies (or Pullman himself), feel free; but 'shut up' is not intelligent discussion. Of course there are issues of more consequence that can be discussed, but that doesn't mean this isn't fair game for critique.

Posted by: R

You can express an opinion of anything you want, just like those who are fans of the film and book can epxress their opinions. But it is equally letigitate to quesion the basis and motivation of the critics as the author and fans, is it not? I have yet to see anyone make or imply a "shut up" statement. That appears to be pure projection on your part. I believe that many of the contributors to this site would like the questioners and critics of Church orthodoxy to just "shut up." I am in favor of the free exchange of ideas. Take your children to see both the Narnia film as well as Golden Compass and discuss the philosophies expressed in both.

What's to fear?

[Carl Olson]

I believe that many of the contributors to this site would like the questioners and critics of Church orthodoxy to just "shut up."

On the contrary, it's been fascinating to watch these folks hang themselves on the short ropes of their frail arguments and thin thinking.

I am in favor of the free exchange of ideas.

Would those ideas include, say, anti-Semiticism, racism, pro-neo-Naziism, bigotry, polygamy, bestiality, or enjoying the music of The Doors? Or do you draw the line somewhere? And, if you do, why? Why limit yourself? Why not be open, say, to bestiality? What are you afraid of? Why would you try to squash the free exchange of ideas?

What's to fear?

Not being afraid, I don't have an answer. Sorry.

[Carl Olson]

I suppose that's why there's at least a dozen posts about the books and film on the front page of the blog. This is obviously the most important issue facing catholics today.

I could understand this sort of posturing if I had actually said this was the most important issue facing Catholics today. Am I to assume that you are one of those unique people whose entire life is concerned only with The Most Important Issue Facing Catholics Today? If so, a hearty round of applause and a free, dry Pepsi on the house.

[R]

I'm not telling you to shut up; on the contrary, I'd like to hear a good defense of Pullman and the books/movie, if you're in the mood to contribute one.

As for "shut up" [i.e. "don't talk about this movie"] statements? Well, I'm referring to yours: I still think it's silly to be so concerned with a film when there are a thousand real threats in the world today.

[Phil Thegiues]

No Carl, you haven't blatantly stated that this is the most important issue facing Catholics today, but when well over half the posts on your blog in the past week or two have been dedicated to bashing a set of children's book and a film you have yet to see, I can draw my own conclusions about your focus and priorities.

Bashing Hollywood and various forms of entertainment seems assured to get you far more attention than posts about obscure authors that few people have ever heard of. Just ask Bill Donohue, who would need to get a real job if he didn't have these little non-issues to whine about on national television as fund-raising techniques.

[Carl Olson]

but when well over half the posts on your blog in the past week or two have been dedicated to bashing a set of children's book and a film you have yet to see, I can draw my own conclusions about your focus and priorities.

I suppose I would defend the number of posts on this or that topic on my blog, but then—it's my blog (well, it's on loan from Ignatius Press, but they seem to like me). Go figure. Oh, and the topic is timely, many readers are interested in it (oh no! don't cater to the readers!), and Ignatius Press is publishing a book on the topic. Of course, if you've been to this blog on a regular basis, you know that numerous topics, popular and obscure, are discussed, including posts about under-read but brilliant authors such as Hans Urs von Balthasar, Lucy Beckett, Christoph Schönborn, and Henri de Lubac, to name just a few.

Bashing Hollywood and various forms of entertainment seems assured to get you far more attention than posts about obscure authors that few people have ever heard of.

One man's bash is another man's splash.

Just ask Bill Donohue, who would need to get a real job if he didn't have these little non-issues to whine about on national television as fund-raising techniques.

Ah ha! Your bedazzling, devastating argument is thus revealed: "I don't like Bill Donohue!" Brilliant. I'm gonna print it out and frame it.

By the way, I'm still waiting for your answer about whether or not bestiality should be part of a "free exchange of ideas."

[Cristina A. Montes]

"No I didn't see your "dismantling". But it's irrelevant."

If you think the dismantling is irrelevant even if you haven't seen it, why do you complain about people criticizing a film they haven't seen?

"First, have any actual Catholic Church representatives come out with statements about this film or the books? I know they issue denounciations of DaVinci Code, but so far, I see no evidence they have said anything against this film."

Thanks for saying this, Phil. A priceless statement. It's a statement we can use in the defense of our Church when someone criticizes it of suppressing or censoring TGC.

" I am in favor of the free exchange of ideas."

If this is the case, then we should be free to explain our objections to this upcoming movie.

And no one's stopping anyone from watching it. All we're doing is explaining why we think no one should. Whether people will heed our warnings is up to them. It's not as if we're going to set guards in front of people's houses to arrest people who are going to watch it.

[Dan Sheehan]

"...there are a thousand real threats in the world today."
True, and this is one of them. It is not a threat like poverty or violence, but it is an insidious one nonetheless. It involves a powerful agent, Hollywood, disseminating a movie sure to be seen by millions of young people who will absorb and process its message, seek out the book it was inspired by and come to this conclusion: the Church (or religion generally, or the Christian religion specifically) is authoritarian and repressive and evil and must be done away with. Carl Olson and many other equally skilled observers and commentators know that this message ought to be opposed, and they are opposing it, thank God. I once had a colleague who learned I was Catholic say to me, 'But didn't you read the Da Vinci Code?" I was able to pass along some of the dissections of that preposterous book (many of the best performed by Mr. Olson and Sandra Miesel) and disabuse my colleague of the notion that the Code represented some sort of genuine correction of religious history.
In any case, this IS the free exchange of ideas, Phil.

[Nomine Cervus]

R,

You are correct in saying that you can have any opinion of the movie you want to. The problem is that Euteneuer and Vere apparently want to have Mr. Forbes fired for having an opinion on the film that doesn't match up with theirs. What is your thought on that?

[Nomine Cervus]

R,

You are correct in saying that you can have any opinion of the movie you want to. The problem is that Euteneuer and Vere apparently want to have Mr. Forbes fired for having an opinion on the film that doesn't match up with theirs. What is your thought on that? Are those two individuals a bit extreme in their actions?

[Mary]

"If faith is so fragile that it can be shaken by the introduction of challenging ideas, what good is it?"

Humm.

Is your belief in racial equality so fragile that it can be shaken by the introduction of challenging idea?

Do you think it a good idea to go see "Birth of A Nation"?

[Carl Olson]

Are those two individuals a bit extreme in their actions?

In my opinion, they are not. But the bishops, of course, will decide if Forbes should be fired or not. Anyhow, Forbes and his reviews has been a constant source of consternation to many Catholics since he started working for the USCCB. Here, for example, is a post by Jimmy Akin in 2005 that examines in detail the fiasco brought on by Forbes' review of "Brokeback Mountain."

[Little Gidding]

Euteneuer and Vere do not want to have Mr. Forbes fired for having an opinion that doesn't match up with theirs. They want to have him fired because he has--twice now--produced "recommendations" for films that are diametrically opposed to Catholic teaching. Their "argument" is not against him per se but with the cockeyed system at the USCCB that elides the personal--and quite obviously here, eccentric--judgment of a film with the judgment of the bishops and their blessing as something recommended as "Catholic" or, at least, in line with Catholic faith and morals. In other words, as if it were an imprimatur on the movie. You can say that that's not what the review or the reviewing office is "supposed" to be, but that matters little, practically speaking. New Line Cinema, for example, over the last couple of days, has played that perception to the hilt, and there is no way that I would believe that that is precisely the way that not only the movie's producers have pushed it, but also the way that many, many people "out there"--all of us "nitwits" (or, in Dawkins-speak, "non-Brights") understand it too.

That's why they want Forbes out of that job--or anyone else, for that matter, who produces movie reviews that recommends movies that are flagrantly and flamboyantly opposed to Catholic teaching.

[R]

Nomine Cervus -

I agree with Little Gidding - the problem is not that Forbes is expressing his opinion; the problem is that he is doing so from a position that carries (or seems to carry) the implied approval of the USCCB. If he had been writing for a secular media outlet there would have been nothing wrong it.

[Brian Schuettler]

"First, the ad conflates the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the official leadership body of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States, with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' Office for Film and Broadcasting. They aren't the same."

The web address for United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' Office for Film and Broadcasting http://www.usccb.org/movies/ as you can see is a subdomain of the USCCB site and certainly gives the appearance, at the very least, of being directly associated with the USCCB. A reasonable person going to the site would logically make the association and therefore come to the conclusion that the USCCB is, at the very least, tacitly approving the information that is being offered at the "movies" page. If Ignatius Press had a page that I could go to that is directly available and associated with Ignatius Press I am certain that Mark, as president of Ignatius Press, would know of and approve the content of the associated page.

In my humble opinion, I believe we are letting the USCCB off the hook without good cause. If something illegal were to be found at the "movies" page, I am certain the USCCB would be brought into the investigation as being potentially culpable, as indeed they should.

[brendon]

In my humble opinion, I believe we are letting the USCCB off the hook without good cause.

This is probably true. The problem is that the USCCB has a huge bureaucracy. Bureaucracy tends to be self-perpetuating and they can be very difficult to reign in. This not only gives us things like these bad reviews, but also any number of documents from committees and sub-committees that have no authority but are treated like they do because they came from an organ of the USCCB. Think of the damage done by Environment and Art in Catholic Worship, a document that had no binding authority. I often wonder if the Church would be better of just getting rid of national bishops' conferences all together and simply requiring bishops to hold a national councils 2-4 times a year. This would allow the bishops actually meet to discuss things that require a nation wide policy while making it more clear that each bishop is the final authority in his diocese. And when the council is over, everyone just packs up and goes home. No permanent bureaucracy left in place to grow out of control and muck things up.

[Brian Schuettler]

"The problem is that the USCCB has a huge bureaucracy. Bureaucracy tends to be self-perpetuating and they can be very difficult to reign in."

You're absolutely right, Brendon, and your point is well taken that the answer to the problem is the surgical removal of the cancer i.e. big, fat self serving bureaucracy. The positive result of this life saving procedure would be a return to the healthy and eminently workable scheme where "each bishop is the final authority in his diocese" and, by extension, accountable for authentic Church teaching and fraternal obedience to the Bishop of Rome.