Hey, everyone. "Moriarty" here with some Rumblings From The Lab.

In my PEARL HARBOR review yesterday, I made mention of the fact that Roger Ebert had not reviewed the film on his syndicated television show, commenting how I found that disturbing based on who produces his show. I'm guessing Roger received a number of e-mails about it, because I got the following in my inbox last night:

To those asking about your recent item, I am replying:

===

For 20 years, I have gone to the Cannes Film Festival, and filed daily reports from there. For 20 years, that has meant we tape two shows before I go, and fill the third week with a "repeat" show. Every year a very big special effects picture opens late in May, and we always miss it. For example, one of the Star Wars pictures, or "Godzilla." We are forced to review those pictures one week late.

It was not possible to see Pearl Harbor before I left for Cannes on May 8. After Cannes, I flew to London, and saw it on the Wednesday night there, and filed my print review on deadline.

Disney has never in 25 years made the slightest interference with what we review, what we say, or when we review it.

I wrote Roger back, asking if I could print his rebuttal here at AICN. I see that David Poland must have been one of the ones who inquired, since he also ran Roger's rebuttal today. However, when Roger wrote back to tell me that he would like me to run it, he added the following postscript:

And do the math. Was there any way I could have seen "Pearl Harbor" before going to Cannes? No. Was I there? Yes. See my daily reports at suntimes.com/ebert. Do I always go? Yes. I wrote a book about it, fer chrissakes, called "Two Weeks in the Midday Sun." And I annually co-anchor the closing ceremoinies for the Independent Film Channel. Did Disney publicists in fact inform me of the London screening, so that I could meet my Friday print deadline instead of missing it? Yes. Would they have done that if they had hoped to keep a review out of the ~200 papers that syndicate my column? Possibly not. Did the Sun-Times hold the page of the Friday pre-print section so that my late-arriving review could get into print? Yes. Did I feel it was more important to be at Cannes than to review "Pearl Harbor" on TV? Yes. As a film critic I refuse to let blockbusters take on an importance out of proportion to my commitment to film in general. If the cinema is worth a lifetime of one's attention, it is because of the kinds of movies they show at Cannes, not because of "Pearl Harbor."

It is interesting that you focused on the missing review and apparently did not even notice that I had been filing daily from Cannes. Don't tell me you're getting blockbuster fever!

Best,

Roger

At any rate, there's the answer, straight from The Thumb himself. Point taken, Roger, and we appreciate you taking the time to address the comments. I think everyone had blockbuster fever last weekend, and it's all the Mouse's fault! I'll make it up next week when I make my pilgrimage to supplicate myself before one of the real giants of American independent cinema on the set of his new film. Until then...