Being one not entirely fond of controversy for controversy's sake, I cannot deny that the prospect of 'Politically Incorrect' host Bill Maher working with Borat director Larry Charles to make a documentary regarding religion in any respect and having it distributed by a studio all too proud to remind you of the hand it had in releasing Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 wasn't one that had me eager to line up around the block for it any time soon.

However, all things considered, while the new trailer for Religulous fails to dilute any notions that this thing is a lightning rod in waiting, I found myself unexpectedly consoled by the fact that Maher and Charles appear to be covering every faith and denomination that they can in making a film about the seemingly ridiculous nature of any one belief to another.

If Ben Stein can both cause an old-fashioned ruckus with his doc on the exclusion of creationist thought in public schools and rake in some relatively decent grosses while doing it, it'll be interesting to see just how much attention this film will inevitably garner come this October 3.

Prior to an hour ago, I had no idea what kind of behavior could get your film tossed out of Muskogee's Bare Bones International Independent Film and Music Festival ... but now I do. According to news sources out of Tulsa, Oklahoma, the independent horror film A Beautiful Day was scheduled to play the festival, but the filmmakers have been asked to take their celluloid and go home. Why? Cuz the "little guys" thought they could borrow some of that viral marketing from the big boys, that's why...

Apparently the guys put together a very vague trailer for their film's festival screening -- and it was so damn vague it was mistaken for a possible terrorist threat! The trailer never lets on that it's a ... movie trailer, plus it had some creepy voice-over that went a little like this: "People of Muskogee. Open your eyes. April 25th is a day you'll come to remember." Yikes. Given the current state of affairs in American high schools, it's no surprise that school officials caught wind of the clip and brought it to the awareness of various authorities.

Never a stranger to taking controversial stances, The Guardian is stirring up some heated debate by accusing the Simpsons character Apu Nahasapeemapetilon of being a "crude racist stereotype." Writer Manish Vij says "Culture-vulture Simpsons fans have felled entire forests in arguing that he's a parody of a stereotype, rather than the stereotype itself. But the plain fact is that most viewers are laughing at Apu, not with him. They're enjoying the simple pleasures of a funny, singsong brown man with a slippery grasp of English." Vij takes major issue with 7-Eleven's recent Kwik-E-Mart makeover promotion (which Erik told you about here), as well. 7-Eleven employees at the converted convenience stores are, as Vij puts it, "being asked to don Kwik-E-Mart costumes with Apu nametags, come to work under banners mocking their ethnicity, and bid customers goodbye with the phrase, 'Thank you, come again!'" He closes the article by saying, "Today, we expect American companies to promote racial tolerance. Yet like an outbreak of a long-dormant virus, 7-Eleven is spending millions of dollars to push a crude ethnic stereotype well past its sell-by date. It's tin-eared and unconscionable. The company should cancel Apu and issue an apology."

Now, I could definitely argue that The Simpsons is, and always has been, satire. It makes fun of anything and everything, and though it's certainly poked fun at race relations over the years, I've never seen anything on the show I'd consider racist. The Apu character talks with an exaggerated accent, but it's an animated comedy show -- everybody does. And it's certainly an equal opportunity offender. Everyone on the program is a stereotype, and those stereotypes are frequently addressed, exposed, disproved, and mocked. Stereotypes exist on The Simpsons to provoke the viewer, as all good comedy should. Fat Tony could offend sensitive Italians, Groundskeeper Willie could offend sensitive Scotsmen, Bumblebee Man could offend sensitive Hispanics, and so on. But I hardly think the intent of The Simpsons' writing staff is to spew hate.

I have to disagree with Vij about Apu being crude and racist. If anything, he's one of the more intelligent and positive presences in Springfield, and I find the author's comparisons of Apu to "minstrel shows" and "Jim Crow America" to be really pushing it. But the 7-Eleven thing is sort of a grey area for me. I haven't visited one of the revamped stores, so I don't know how the "Apu" issue is being handled, but it certainly sounds like potentially dangerous turf. What do you think? Is Mr. Nahasapeemapetilon an offensive racist caricature? Is this a serious issue or much Apu about nothing?

When it comes to smoking in the movies, it looks like the butt might stop here. Harvard's School of Public Health is the latest organization to join in urging Hollywood studios to stamp out cigarette smoking in movies seen by young people. Executives from the major studios, NATO, the Director's Guild of America, the Screen Actor's Guild and NBC recently joined academics from Harvard and Johns Hopkins in meeting with the MPAA to discuss the issue. Smoking in movies has stirred up controversy for years -- a similar meeting was held back in 1999, but not much came of it. Anti-smoking groups want restrictions on smoking to be incorporated into the ratings system. Jay A. Winsten, Harvard School of Public Health associate dean, and director for the school's Center for Health Communication says: "What's needed is a movie ratings policy that creates an incentive for filmmakers to consider, and worry about, the depiction of smoking as a factor in the determination of a film's rating ... the goal should be the elimination (with rare exceptions) of smoking from youth-rated films."

The folks at Harvard presented statistics from a study where they found that 66% of the top-50 grossing films over a 12 month period (spanning 2004 and 2005) contained depictions of smoking. And 68% of PG-13 films over that time showed characters taking a puff. That broke down to 12.8 incidents of smoking per hour of running time -- the highest in a decade -- for the top-50 pics, and 14.2 depictions per hour of running time for the PG-13 movies. R-rated films over the same time period averaged 20.4 depictions per hour. Harvard School of Public Health dean Barry Bloom urged Tinseltown honchos to "take substantive and effective action to eliminate the depiction of tobacco smoking from films accessible to children and youths, and take leadership and credit for doing so. Don't ignore the issue or put a fig leaf on it, like a descriptor on DVDs. That would be the equivalent of the tobacco industry cynically putting smoking warnings on cigarette packages."

The Harvard speakers find depictions of smoking to be even more detrimental to our children than the other issues that ratings already cover. "No one has died from hearing the f-word," said Bloom. "But 438,000 people in U.S., and five million worldwide, die each year from tobacco-related illness. We appreciate that movies are expensive, complex and demanding to make. If you are honest I think you will admit that most smoking in movies is both unnecessary and cliched, and serves to make smoking socially acceptable to kids."

Song of the South has always been something of a blemish on the Disney name, due to its racist undertones. However, it can't be denied that the film is a piece of film history. It's got a reputation not unlike The Birth of a Nation, the 1915 film school staple that is widely hailed as one of the most important films of all time on one hand...but could be taken as a recruiting film for the Ku Klux Klan on the other. Song has taken a lot of flack over the years, due to its portrayal of Southern plantation blacks. The film has never been released on video in the United States, and this is from a company that releases, and re-releases, and re-re-releases everything. That may soon change, though. Disney President Bob Iger recently announced that the company has been giving some serious thought to making it available.

Iger states "We've decided to take a look at it again because we've had numerous requests about bringing it out. Our concern was that a film that was made so many decades ago being brought out today perhaps could be either misinterpreted or that it would be somewhat challenging in terms of providing the appropriate context." Song of the South was originally released in 1946. If you're not familiar with its characters, you've surely heard its most famous song, "Zip-A-Dee-Doo-Dah." Splash Mountain at the Disney parks is based on the film. A mix of animated content and live-action, Song tells the story of a young white boy, Johnny, who goes to live on a Georgia plantation. A black servant entertains Johnny with the stories of Brer Rabbit, Brer Bear and Brer Fox, which are actual black folk tales. Remus' stories include the saga of the "Tar Baby," a phrase which today is considered a derogatory term for African-Americans.

The film doesn't refer to the characters as slaves, and it isn't as offensive as a lot of the controversial material from America's unfortunate past. Many don't see how it's any more upsetting than, say, Gone With the Wind. But the fact that Song is a children's film surely adds to the concern. The demand for the film can't be denied -- nearly 115,000 people have signed an online petition asking Disney to make the movie available to the public. Buena Vista Home Entertainment, which distributes Disney films for home viewing, cites it only as a possibility, stating: "Song of the South is one of a handful of titles that has not seen a home distribution window. To this point, we have not discounted nor committed to any distribution window concerning this title."

'R' you shocked? We told you last week that Grindhouse was teetering on the edge of the dreaded "NC-17" rating. A studio insider reported that "Some cuts definitely will have to be made. There's no question." Well, I don't know if they made the trims or not, but Grindhouse is officially being released with an "R" rating. The rating is for (and this is hardly surprising) "strong graphic bloody violence and gore, pervasive language, some sexuality, nudity, and drug use." That about covers everything, doesn't it?

So it's official. The trailers will no longer say "This Film Is Not Yet Rated." You'll see ads for Grindhouse in your local newspaper. And you'll be able to check it out at the local mall -- might want to avoid the food court beforehand! I suppose we'll learn in a couple weeks if any major deletions were required by the MPAA, but for two experienced envelope-pushers like Tarantino and Rodriguez, I'd imagine working the ratings board couldn't have been that big of a challenge. Wouldn't it be great to sit in on these ratings conversations? "Take out one pelvic thrust here and one exploding eyeball there and we'll give you your 'R'." It just seems so ridiculous. You can see all the "strong graphic bloody violence and gore" for yourself when Grindhouse blasts its blood-drenched, drugged-up, foul-mouthed, totally naked, sex-havin' self into theaters on April 6th!

In the wake of Sacha Baron Cohen's alter-ego Borat trying to gain access to the White House, MTV has listed ten other publicity stunts for films -- including Kevin Smith's truly grovel-worthy MySpace friends-for-a-movie-credit exchange. Although probably most disturbing on the list is the 1988 film Mac and Me which was partially financed by Coca-Cola and McDonalds, and features a musical number that finds Mac dancing with Ronald McDonald. Holy hour and a half long commercial, Batman!

However, I'm reminded of several stunts that didn't make the list. Remember when Clue was released in theaters, and they featured three different endings, so people would go see it more than once? What a fiasco, as finding out which theater was showing what ending proved to be too much work. Don't forget about the "unauthorized" documentary about M. Night Shyamalan that aired on the Sci-Fi channel. It turned out to be a fake created to get more viewers in to see The Village. Of course, the most memorable publicity stunt, real or fake (the jury is still out) has been Tom Cruise jumping up and down on Oprah's couch. Although given Tom's downward slide lately, that one appears to have backfired on him as well. Of course, leave it to MTV themselves to have Steve-O going number one on the carpet at the premiere to promote Jackass: Number Two. They just seem to be getting classier, don't they?

What do you think about publicity stunts? Do they make you want to see the movie or avoid it like the plague? Do you have any personal favorites that didn't make the list?

Despite the fact that one theater in New York pulled the trailer for Paul Greengrass' United 93 after receiving multiple complains, Universal has no plans to remove the trailer from the nearly 3000 theaters in which it's currently playing, or to edit or recut it. While one theater's decision would rarely cause much of a fuss, the subject of 9/11 movies is so sensitive that everything about United 93 is in a media spotlight. For that reason, it probably wasn't wise of a Universal spokesman to compare the complaints about its trailer to the "ruckus" that was raised by a few people about the poster for The 40-Year-Old Virgin last summer. I don't about you, but if he actually thinks those two things are the same, I'm thinking the man should stay far, far away from any and all marketing meetings, not to mention journalists. And microphones.

In other news, Greengrass himself will reportedly take part in a live chat on the United 93 website (where he's also participating in the forum, according to the people at CHUD) on April 20, from 8-9pm eastern time. If you've got question, comments, or nasty remarks, that'll be your chance to confront the director in text form. If anyone goes, please let us know how it is, via tip or comment.

Sony, fully aware of the controversy surrounding its upcoming movie based on a popular book that isn't very good, has set up a Web site for detractors of The DaVinci Code. The site will feature essays by Christian leaders and scholars, one of which is Gordon Robinson, son of televangelist Pat Robertson. Don't worry, though, there's much better essays to be found on The DaVinci Challenge. Dan Brown's novel claims that Jesus married and never rose from the dead and places the Vatican at the center of the conspiracy. The site features absolutely no writings from Catholics, although Charles Colson, a prominent figure during the Watergate scandal, will write on Catholicism.

Forget the battle over Battle in Heaven – what's a couple of blow jobs compared to 9/11-as-digital orgy?

There will certainly not be a more controversial film at this year's Festival than Edouard Salier's Flesh (subtitled, The Truth About 9/11), which showed for the first time as part of Shorts Program V this morning. Visually stunning but tasteless and ideologically confused,  this 10-minute, CG-short endeavors to restage the 9/11 World Trade Center attacks as an orgy ... literally. In Salier's digital dystopia, mostly-naked female bodies writhe in superimposed ecstacy on the glass face of every skyscraper in the city. When the planes hit the World Trade Center towers, the buildings appear to strike out in spears of frozen blood – but the sexy girls writhe away, entirely unaffected until the towers fall away. This happens around minute five, and as the shot pulls back for a wide view of the destruction, it seems for a moment that Salier is going to leave it at that – a bad joke, perhaps, but not enough of a statement to be worth getting upset over.

He doesn't. Soon, the music changes, and the sky fills with more planes – one for every building in the city, and by extension, for every girl. First the Crysler Building, then the Empire State, and it goes on from there: one by one, these CGI flyers take out every notable structure in New York City, puncturing each pouty vixen somewhere near the heart. Surely there's some significance to the fact that the Statue of Liberty alone (which here glows an almost sky blue) is spared, although beyond the facile fact that it's the city's one structure not colonized by Vivid Video refugees, I'm not exactly sure what it is.is it because she's French?

I'm actually of the mind that it's time to confront 9/11, both as a historical reality, and in terms of its lasting cultural mythology. But Flesh is not just offensive - it's really rather silly. Beyond the instant, easy metaphor of penetration, it doesn't seem to have an idea in it's admittedly pretty little head. 2 points for flawless execution of a terrible idea.