newsaskew.com - Dogma : Rumor Control
WHAT'S NEW
12.01.99
PRINCIPAL CAST
04.13.99
SCRIPT & SUMMARY
03.15.99
PRODUCTION NOTES
08.18.99
PICTURE GALLERY
11.04.99
DOWNLOADS
11.08.99
KEVIN'S UPDATES FROM THE SET
03.15.99
"BEARCLAW" DIARY
04.24.98
ON SET REPORTS
03.15.99
REVIEWS & ARTICLES
12.01.99
Chris Alley
Brad Plevyak

Click To Get Back To www.newsaskew.com

06.22.99 - EXCLUSIVE - CATHOLIC LEAGUE PRESS CONFERENCE REPORT...

Dogma appeared briefly in the very respectable Time Magazine this week, though it's SPOILER FILLED! BEWARE!!!! Opening an article regarding violence in movies, entitled "Bullets over Hollywood". Swipe the black space below to reveal the story:
    "Miramax and the Catholic League have been brawling for months over Dogma, a film about holy men behaving badly, which will hit theaters later this year. But even as the filmmakers invoke artistic freedom to defend Dogma's edgy religious scenes, they are quietly considering whether to re-edit other scenes, including one in which a pair of pistol-packing angels, played by Matt Damon and Ben Affleck, bullet-spray a board meeting at a large corporation, and another in which they have massacred a group outside a church. "There's definitely the question of Columbine to consider," says director Kevin Smith.

06.22.99 - EXCLUSIVE - CATHOLIC LEAGUE PRESS CONFERENCE REPORT...

  • Today, the Catholic League held a press conference in the hopes of banding folks together to fight the most important enemy of the Catholic religion: Dogma. Yes, Dogma. Want to know what happened? Here's an on site EXCLUSIVE, from ace reporter Sean:
      "If the film comes out, by definition we're offended"

      Before you read this article, and feel that I snuck in to spy on the proceedings, it should be stated that I honestly am a writer for the NYU publication, The Plague, as I stated when I signed in. I went as a matter of curiousity, without seeking or receiving permission, real or implied, from News Askew, View Askew Productions (including any person connected therein, legally or in any other way), Kevin Smith, Miramax Films (or its subsidiaries), the Weinstein Brothers or their lawyers, or Disney. I went of my own will and desire, and, as such, humbly request that any hate mail, responses, criticisms, or compliments, by sent directly to me -- Guam824@aol.com -- and that I be referred to as an independent source (or by my name, Sean Richardson) and not a "spy" or anything else. Whether or not this is published in The Plague, we shall see. (I doubt it, but I can hope.)

      [Also note that anything in quotes after this is a quote from Catholic League president William Donohue unless otherwise indicated.]

      Now that that's out of the way... The Catholic League is at it again. I'm sure that's what many people will say. After their recent conflict with The Simpsons ("We showed them, insult anybody, Baptists, Protestants, Presbyterians, just not Catholics!"), they've moved on to bigger things.

      Is their conflict really with (Kevin Smith's) Dogma? Partially. After "requesting to see the script and the film countless times," Donohue settled for reading the third draft off the Internet. [He acknowledged after the conference to one reporter that the final shooting script was Draft Five, and that he read Draft Three, and they had already cut the "particularly blasphemous segment" regarding Hosties' Cereal.] When I arrived, slightly late, he was acknowledging that this protest would likely provide a slight bump in the film's grosses, and also said that thier "plans" for Opening Day were still being decided.

      When Askew-friend John Pierson, in attendance, pointed out that Kevin was a lifelong devout Catholic, Donohue dismissed that with two quotes from Kevin (I know they're available elsewhere on News Askew); one regarding Sunday mass being difficult to sit through sometimes, the other regarding his crisis of fate leading to this script, to which Donohue replied, "I'll introduce him to some good priests to help him through, but don't write a movie like this!" (Apparently, the film does not affirm faith.)

      His specific complaints were as follows:

      (1) Joseph and Mary having sex.
      (2) Jesus' descendant (!) working in an abortion clinic (!!!)
      (3) The "Howard Stern" type dirty humor throughout, that "the country is growing tired of." [If given another chance, I would like to ask Donohue how he feels about dialog like that making the film, and therefore the faith contained within, more accessible to today's youth, a generation or two removed from him as we are.]

      But, it seemed, he had bigger fish to fry, making the primary target of his talks not Kevin Smith, or Dogma, but Miramax films and the Weinsteins specifically. [He still has not acknowledged that the Weinsteins, not Miramax, own Dogma.] His (by his own admission) large scale plans call for Disney to altogether drop Miramax and return to being "family friendly". Being extremely cordial to Mr. Pierson, he acknowledged that "those guys (the Weinsteins) are no dummies .... they've released many extremely good films, but they feel the need to continually attack the Catholic faith ... I feel that they will do quite well on their own, especially if they lay off the Catholic-bashing." He feels, though, that while Disney is in a period of weakness (profits are, apparently, down), now is the time to "exploit" that and get Disney to completely drop the Weinsteins and their "agenda".

      The League's goal (and, misguided though this may be, I do think they have pure motives) is singular, he says. They don't care about politics (he endorses nobody, but will commend a politician who denounces Dogma as blasphemy, even Hillary Clinton, as the reporter asked); they're "not out to be liked", or "assimilate" (as "many Catholics are nowadays"), just to stop the "growing" prejudice he feels exists for and towards Catholics, not as individuals, but as a faith and a church.

      After the conference, I myself asked two questions.

      Q1) Do you feel the Weinsteins' fear of violence is justified, not neccessarily sanctioned by the League, but from more zealous members?

      A1) No, because there is not one incident of violence in the history of the League.

      Q2) If that's true, then why not issue in a statement, even in conjunction with the "re-doubling your efforts" one, that such tactics will not be accepted or condoned?

      A2) (thrown, visibly slightly annoyed) Well, I would think that's gratutious, but it is ... it's a good thought.

      Me) Thank you.

      [it should be noted, I had no tape recorder; those are not direct quotes, however they do convey both the intention of the statements and, wherever possible, the verbatim account.]

      Thus ended my face-to-face meeting with him (by his own admission, more than he has had with Kevin).

      Other things of note from the conference:

      -- The press packet included the Weinsteins' attorneys' full letter. I know this was originally intended to be private, however, since they are now making it public, I'll transcribe that for you as well, ASAP.

      -- A similar letter did stop protests of Corpus Christi after two days. However, in the interim between then and now, the League researched and found that the legality of their "blame" is questionable. (Thanks to John Pierson for that tidbit.)

      -- Donohue specifically thanked Ben Affleck for his quote regarding the film being designed to push buttons.

      -- He also brought up a quote from Roger Ebert, "Nobody in attendance was offended," responding: "Why should they be? They went to see the movie, they're not the ones we expect to be offended." (Ignoring that Ebert pointed out his own lifelong Catholicism in the article.)

      -- Though one reporter was quick to label Kevin as "an ex-Catholic posing as a Catholic", Donohue dismissed that by saying, "I don't care if he's a Buddhist!" adding it was the film itself whose blasphemy was important, moreso than the maker's.

      In the coming weeks, we'll see if he releases a statement in indirect response to my question (which, sadly, most reporters didn't see, though Pierson commented to me afterwards about it), but I assure you all that if there is another press conference like this one, I'll do everything in my power to attend and report on it as unbiased as possible as both a Christian and a Kevin Smith fan, as well as bringing any of my own points (like the Language = accessibility one) into the discussion.

      From the field,
      Sean Richardson

      -Sean is not a member of the Associated Press, View Askew Productions, or News Askew, but attended the conference as the lone reporter representing any publication from New York University.

    Fantastic report, Sean. Thanks for giving us the straight facts on what went down today.

    Call us crazy, but when WAS the last time that an organization like this stopped a film from being released to theaters? Do they really think that all this protesting is going to stop Dogma from arriving? The film's coming out, people. Wake up. Oh, but we suppose they'll still take your donations, anyway. We hear that Donohue commented that he had no doubt that "Dogma" would find a distributor and would be released. If that's the case, why does the fight continue? I doubt picketers outside of a movie theater are going to deter filmgoers. If anything, they'd bring me in out of sheer interest.

    By the way, the letter that Sean mentioned above (from the attorneys) can be read in the press area.

    06.21.99 - KEVIN GOES TO BAT...

  • Yeah! It's GREAT to see a nice long message from Kevin with his latest feelings on this whole Dogma/Catholic League thing. Like Kevin, we agree that it's a very sad, confusing situation. We hold no ill will at all towards the Catholic faith, and neither does Kev OR the movie for that matter, yet the League continues their assault without even thinking. Is that REALLY how Catholics are taught? Being raised a Catholic and hitting church every Sunday with my family for all those years, I just don't think so. Anyway, here's Kev:
      Do I advocate censorship? When that censorship is in the form of a violent act to silence someone a group doesn't agree with, then absolutely. And it's not... NOT... even in the same ballpark as pointing at a 'Natural Born Killers' and saying "That there movin' pitcher makes people kill!" Holding up a work of fiction (like 'Catcher in the Rye') and insisting that it incites violence is like holding up a copy of 'Playboy' and saying it incites masturbation. 'Tis not the book, but the hand of the book-looker that commits the act.

      But there's a fundamental difference with William Donohue's war-like chatter in regards to 'Dogma'. He's not discerning the flick as a work of fiction that people shouldn't lend much credence to. He's maintaining that it's out and out blasphemy - and worse, he's selling this to a wide, disparate group of the faithful. Their reactions may manifest themselves in postcards that say they disagree with 'Dogma' and urge us to reconsider releasing the film (of which there are many), or threats of violence against anyone remotely involved with the film (of which there are also many).

      For anyone to point to the League and maintain that if anyone gets hurt over this movie, the League is going to be held responsible is NOT the same thing as some conservatives maintaining that Hollywood is to blame for Columbine. They're not even in the same ballpark. Bill Donohue and the League have made their position clear from the get-go: 'Dogma' is a blasphemous, evil work, that they object to and want to bury. And in saying as much, he's used questionable terms and phrases that can be (and apparently has already) construed as a call-to-arms, as it were. Now we've made our position clear: if anyone... ANYONE... gets hurt in the process of their protest, we're holding Bill Donohue and the League responsible. What does that mean? It means exactly this: if anyone... ANYONE... gets hurt in the process of their protest, we're holding Bill Donohue and the League responsible. Does that amount to much in, say, a court of law? Probably not. If someone DOES get hurt, I imagine we'd have a hard time convincing the court system that Bill Donohue and the League should be held responsible. No - this was just a private (mind you, the letter that was sent to Bill Donohue was not a public, soap-boxy affair; it was done quietly, so as not to make a grand-standing deal about it) conversation between two parties, so as to make our position understood. You'll note that, again, no one from the Weinstein side of the equation is fanning the flames in print, looking for the war of words Bill Donohue seems to desire.

      One party would just like to simply distribute its pro-faith/pro-Catholic (oh the irony in all of this) film, while the other party is rattling sabers very publicly, drumming up far more interest in the movie than it's probably due (as the filmmaker, I'm depressed by the expectation the League is saddling this film with; folks heading into the theatre based on all the League has said about the film, hoping to kick back for two hours worth of church-bashing are going to be sadly, sadly disappointed in how devout and faith-friendly the flick actually is).

      And I'll point out that I, myself, have never been contacted by William Donohue or anyone from the Catholic League. Why not, you may ask? Because I'm the very small broom-handler in this trumped-up witch-hunt. No - Mike Eisner is the target here, folks; so much so that - even though 'Dogma' is no longer a Disney or Miramax film - Bill Donohue is demanding that Disney dump Miramax now. Why? What does that have to do with anything at this point? It's about publicity, friends. You want national attention, you don't attack the 'Clerks' guy; you go after the head of one of the most widely recognized corporations in the world. And even when the wind's been taken out of the sails of your attack (ie - Dinsey no longer has anything to do with 'Dogma' domestically), you create some other new issue (like "Well... Disney should dump Miramax! Yeah! That's it!") out of something small (like a letter that quietly states our standing on the thousands of threats we've received, since Bill Donohue started his anti-'Dogma' campaign).

      And in the midst of all this sad politicing, I find my faith in Christ is even stronger than it was before, and I find myself really sympathizing with the Man. Could you imagine having to watch this and all the far, far worse inanity carried out in your name, when your central message was one of peace and tolerance? And pile upon that the fact that all the money the Catholic League will have raised for their 'war' against 'Dogma' would've been far, far better spent clothing and feeding the poor (and before ya'll go pointing fingers, let me assure you - doing so only as a pre-defense, and not as any sort of glory-hounding grandstanding - that a sizeable portion of what I annually make goes toward charity and Christian acts).

      A BOARDER QUESTIONS : "Oh, and an interesting thought about unlimate blame: if you believe that the Christian bible is "God's Word" then, untimately, their God is responsible for telling his desciples to commit violence in his name. Should we sue their god?"

      BACK TO KEV : No. God doesn't have enough liquid assets. Sure, the Lord has the planet, but we already swiped that from the Almighty ages ago (or, at least, so we think).

      I have no desire to sue God, thank you; nor anybody else for that matter. But the Bible is still REPUTED to be God's words, while we've seen first-hand that what William Donohue has said were HIS words. I don't see God in the pages of the New York Post, blabbing on about 'Dogma', or rather, Disney.

      I grow weary from talking this to death. I'm not Lenny Bruce (in many, many ways), so in the future, I'd like to limit the amount of constitutional rights arguments I have to comment on. Can't we talk about dick and fart jokes, and even the Lord instead?

      Oh right - that's what got me into this position in the first place.

    CLICK HERE TO READ MORE ARCHIVED NEWS

  • Copyright 1997-1999 [ NEWSASKEW.COM ]