USCCB Golden Compass Reviewer, Harry Forbes, Gave A Positive Review To Yet Another Film With A Homosexual Theme

(CNS photo by Nancy Wiechec)

Here's the story: USCCB Reviewer Caught Okaying Another Film Celebrating Homosexual Immorality

Quote:

Harry Forbes, director of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) Office of Film and Broadcasting, has given a positive review to the homosexually-themed "Rent".

Forbes, whose initial positive review of "Brokeback Mountain" two years' ago was subsequently modified by the USCCB, became the center of controversy earlier this month after the USCCB withdrew his positive review of "The Golden Compass".

The 2005 movie "Rent" is based upon a musical of the same name.

The movie's plot follows the relationships between a group of friends who come together through New York City's East Village fine arts community.

Three of the eight main characters are HIV-positive, while a fourth named Angel is a transvestite street musician with full-blown AIDS.

One of these HIV-positive characters is Mimi, a heroin addict who earns a living as a stripper and a prostitute. The movie portrays some scenes of her performing in the club.

A second HIV-positive character is Tom, a philosophy professor who finds himself in a homosexual relationship with Angel.

Two of the other main characters include Maureen, a bisexual performance artist, who breaks her engagement to aspiring film-maker Mark in order to enter into a sexual relationship with Joanne, a lesbian lawyer. Maureen and Joanne will hold a commitment ceremony part way through the movie.

The only one of the eight friends to settle down and marry is Benjamin, who is often portrayed as the antagonist for "selling out" the fine arts community. In fact, the name "Rent" comes from Benjamin's attempt to fulfill his family obligations by collecting rent from the other seven characters.

Although Forbes admits in his 2005 review that the "film's subject matter may turn off many viewers," he nevertheless describes it as "a snapshot of a piece of cultural history -- both the era depicted and the musical itself," calling it "an impressive achievement."

"The cast is superb," writes Forbes. "The original cast members wear the years lightly, while newcomers Dawson and Thoms fit in beautifully with the ensemble. [...] The dissolute, countercultural lifestyles of some of the characters take second place to the overriding themes of love, connection, dealing with loss and appreciation of life."

My thoughts:

Harry Forbes really seems to like movies about homosexuals, and whoever has been running the show at the USCCB during Forbes' tenure seems to really like Harry Forbes, because he still has a job reviewing films for the USCCB.

I suspect people look to reviews from the USCCB for a moral perspective on the films they review. If they want to find out whether or not the film is enjoyable, they'd look to Rotten Tomatoes, Ebert & Roeper, or Leonard Maltin.

My guess is that Catholics who bother to check how the USCCB rates a film want to know if there are morally problematic plot points, if a film is acceptable for children, or if a movie is morally objectionable, not read a detailed film review, loaded with personal opinion, written by someone with a poor grasp of Catholic moral theology.

I suspect Michael Medved and Hollywood Jesus do a better job articulating a moral perspective that faithful Catholics can appreciate than Harry Forbes.

For example, here's the Hollywood Jesus flawed, but still superior, review for Brokeback Mountain: Brokeback Mountain

See also: USCCB Golden Compass Reviewer, Harry Forbes, Roundly Criticized For His Positive Review

Any thoughts?

Comments

[ASimpleSinner]

There seems to be some confusion as to what Harry's job description is...

If he is just there to review artistic merits? I am told "Brokeback Mountain" had stunning cinematography and the sound & sets of "Rent" are technically well done. Why are the bishops paying him to do that? Maybe they can also spend collection money on a restaraunt reviewer?

But if that is his job description - to review movies from a secular stand point of acting and production values, the USCCB should remove their names from his efforts.

Otherwise some of us who don't know better would be tricked into considering his reviews serve as a Catholic commentary on the content.

I am really not certain what the value of these reviews are or why "Brokeback" or "Rent" needs a full review written up. "Pro-homosexual film" seems to sum it up rather tidely.

Bishops if we want secular commentary, we will watch Ebert & Roeper.

[Joseph-USA]

Your posting includes your thought that: "Harry Forbes really seems to like movies about homosexuals...".

My thought is that Harry Forbes IS obviously himself a homosexual, AND he demonstrates, that ALL homosexuals are unable to perform any leadership or otherwise responsible function within the Roman Catholic Church (i.e. ordained or administrative).

Now, if you find that you cannot even consider my thoughts, written above, because I have not PROVEN my basic assumption regarding Mr. Forbes sexuality, could you do the investigative work and contact him or the USCCB, or the Devil, who is likely also provided office space and a salary by the USCCB, and ask any-all of them whether Mr. Forbes is homosexual.

Then, could we discuss my contention that homosexuality is a profound mental illness which renders the person who is so burdened to be entirely unable to function as any sort of leader or responsible party within our Church (unless we want to nearly destroy it).

[Mona Alona]

And we're paying this guy's salary. Wonderful. I can't take this anymore. Please Papa Ratzi do something.

[Mona Alona]

Vatican Newspaper Slams "Golden Compass" as "The Most Anti-Christmas Film Possible"

By John-Henry Westen

VATICAN CITY, December 19, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano added its voice yesterday to the condemnation of the newly released film 'The Golden Compass" and the book series on which the film was based. In a lengthy editorial on December 18, the paper said Golden Compass was "the most anti-Christmas film possible."

This latest confirmation of Catholic opposition to the film, puts into sharp relief once again the positive review which the film received from the film office of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). After several Catholic leaders and many lay faithful contacted the USCCB with their concerns the review was officially withdrawn. Since then a growing number of Catholic bishops and archbishops have publicly condemned the film.

The Vatican paper's editorial explained, "It's a film that leaves one cold, because it brings with it the coldness and the desperation of rebellion, solitude and individualism."

L'Osservatore Romano also observed that Phillip Pullman, the author of 'His Dark Materials' novels on which the film was based, advocates "a totally atheist ideology, the enemy of all religions, traditional and institutional, and of Christianity and Catholicism in particular."

"In the world of Pullman, hope simply doesn't exist, in part because there is no salvation but only personal, individualistic capacity to control the situation and dominate events," it said.

Honest viewers of the film gifted with a discerning spirit, "will feel no particular emotion, except for a great chill -- which is not only due to the polar scenes," said the paper.

It goes to show, said the Vatican paper, "when man tries to eliminate God from his horizon, everything is reduced, made sad, cold and inhuman."

The editorial suggested that the film's lackluster performance at the box office compared to blockbusters such as 'Chronicles of Narnia', could deter films based on the other two books in the series. "If that should happen, it wouldn't be a big loss," it said.

The man responsible for the USCCB's now-pulled positive review of 'Golden Compass' is the USCCB film office director Harry Forbes, who embarrassed the USCCB two years ago with a glowing review for the homosexual propaganda film Brokeback Mountain. That review was altered substantially after Catholics were alerted to it by a LifeSiteNews.com report.

Human Life International Leader Fr. Tom Euteneuer has called on the USCCB to fire Forbes for the scandal he has caused.

LifeSiteNews.com reported yesterday on another positive review Forbes made in the name of the USCCB for a film celebrating homosexual immorality. (see: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/dec/07121804.html )

To express concerns contact:

USCCB President
Francis Cardinal George, O.M.I.
Archdiocese of Chicago
155 E. Superior Street Chicago, IL
60611 312-751- 8200
mfox@archchicago.org

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/dec/07121901.html

[Jimbo]

Rent was not very good: musically or acting-wise. There was one good song--maybe two-- in the entire 90 + minutes. (Compare this with Westside Story, Phantom of the Opera, the Sound of Music, etc.) I would be very surprised if anyone is watching it ten years from now...with the exception of some in the sophisticated "arts" community who seem to think this was a masterpiece.

Yeah, it's a masterpiece in a modern art kind of way!

What it was was depressing and endlessly woe-is-us.

[Lazlo Toth]

For goodness's sake, man, you're on Planet Earth, you're alive, and there's the whole of God's wild, brilliant, beautiful creation out there. Grab a nice bottle of wine, or two or three, and drink until you don't care about these idiotic things anymore. You'll be helping everyone on earth who *isn't* attempting to spread the Gospel by being a whinging prude.

Does no one realize that whether a movie has artistic merit is a *separate issue from whether it conveys a message compatible with Catholicism? A Catholic movie reviewer must give an honest, thorough assessment of the movie's artistic quality *in addition* to evaluating its moral value. A movie can be "a snapshot of a piece of cultural history" and feature "superb" acting despite being morally offensive. Should Forbes have lied and said Rent's cast was terrible and storytelling shoddy? Or should he have neglected part of his role and not addressed those aspects of the movie, since some people misinterpreted his praise of the acting and storytelling as his condoning the objectionable parts of the film?