Catholic Tastes

New Yorkers and Los Angelenos: You came. You saw. Hopefully, you liked. Next week and for several weeks after, the film expands outward into new cities and theatres. So blindfold your impressionable friends, hide your housepets, and lock up Mom's china - we're comin' to your town! (That last line's taken from one of David Lee Roth's old setlists - but I left out the part about Jack Daniel's and being 'hot for teacher'. Sooooo 1984).

Very happy with a lot of the reviews - LA Times, NY Times, Rolling Stone, Entertainment Weekly, Village Voice, NY Daily News, NY Post, Newsday, even People , etc, etc - all had a lot of nice things to say, and we appreciate them. But my favorite review ran in the Catholic News Service.

Yes, that's right, the Catholic News Service. And believe me, that's not just 'cause I grew up Catholic.

It isn't really the review itself that I enjoyed so much, as it isn't particularly flattering or all that on-target. (And sadly, we missed out on getting their rating of 'O' - morally offensive. John Waters got it for "Dirty Shame"...and I'm eternally jealous). No, this review is memorable for what's omitted. The writer, Harry Forbes, is listed in our film as a member of the double-secret MPAA appeals board, representing the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (Protestants and Catholics are the only religious groups with admitted emissaries behind the MPAA's closed doors, and Forbes' name had been confirmed by the Protestant representative, James Wall, a Methodist minister).

Does Mr. Forbes mention this fact in his review? Never. Not once.

You would think this would be an obvious thing to write about. Even to include as an aside. "By the way, in the interest of discretion, I should mention that I'm revealed to be on the MPAA appeals board during the course of the film. Never mind the obvious biases that might exist in my review because of that, but boy was it weird to write about a film in which my name is exposed to the general public as one of two clandestine religious representatives working to help filter American film culture - maybe for the first time ever!"

No, that didn't happen.

Instead, he writes: At one point, (director Atom) Egoyan expresses particular outrage that "members of the clergy" attend the appeals hearing, referencing a Protestant and Catholic presence. (In the interest of full disclosure, members of the Office for Film & Broadcasting do sometimes observe the appeals, but they are prohibited from voting or influencing the vote in any way, and, for the record, the Catholic representatives are laypeople.)

And then, he stops short of the obvious conclusion. The part about, um, himself.

And why? If your name were in a film and you were asked to write about it, wouldn't you at least pay some heed to the fact that you were included? You'd say something, at least - "I don't like talking about it, but..."; "I don't know where they got my name from, however..."; etc. etc. If you didn't, wouldn't that be at least a little suspect? Slightly less than comprehensive? Shouldn't it bear some examination as to how this man could seriously write about the movie, yet leave this out? And won't his readers feel cheated to read the revelation here, amidst cheap jokes about oversized genitalia and bad pop culture?

To the few critics who felt that it was unnecessary or unbecoming to hire a PI to investigate the MPAA, I ask you, how the hell else were we supposed to find this stuff out?

They sure aren't talking about it.

In the interest of full disclosure, I attempted to speak with Harry Forbes in hopes of interviewing him for THIS FILM IS NOT YET RATED. Like Jack Valenti and Dan Glickman before him, he did not respond.

NEXT TIME: I promise, I'm going to answer your comments. But first, I want you to comment on this!!!