|
|
|
January 28, 2005 Hollywood's True Colors
Thankfully for us all, the accolades of mere men don't count for much in this life. Still, there is a manifestation of certain attitudes towards the cause of Christ that are made more explicit by many of the decisions made in Hollywood. Granted, Gibson had quite a feat before him with absolutely no commercial support, tons of controversy, and film with subtitles in an ancient language hardly anyone uses anymore. Needless to say, if we're talking depth and quality, "The Passion" is certainly more deserving than the 1999 "Best Picture" winner, "American Beauty". Sadly, this whole charade certainly isn't about who is more deserving. If so, then Halle Berry wouldn't have won an Oscar for her role as Leticia Musgrove in "Monster's Ball". Instead, this is about the politics of the film industry and the statements executives quietly send about who does and doesn't gain their approval. Admitting defeat, several activist types lobbied throughout the year for at least a "Best Picture" nomination for the Gibson's vivid depiction of the last hours of Jesus's life. In a striking juxtaposition, "The Passion" and Michael Moore's most recent manipulative effort, "Fahrenheit 9/11" have ended up in the same sentence. Moore's flick (and it truly is a flick) was also snubbed by the "Academy". Unfortunately, one thing many have failed to realize is that unlike "Fahrenheit 9/11", "The Passion" was actually a good film. Throughout the embroilments that plagued the release of "The Passion"--the most hilarious of which were charges from the Jewish community that the film incited too extreme a notion of good and evil (duh)--Hollywood's general attitude toward the film was blatantly stand-offish. Apparently, Hollywood is not comfortable with the idea that morality is fairly black and white. However, much like the post-election Democrats scrambled to piece together some sort of morality platform, uncomfortable with the fact that a "faith film" was making money of which they had no part, Hollywood scrambled in search of some values. And just like the Democrats, Hollywood failed. Unfortunately, the idea of morality, which suggests some form of absolutes just didn't jibe well with the general "ho-hum", NC-17 masquerading as PG-13, who cares if it's disgusting, "whatever's going to sell movie tickets", attitude that has so overtaken the film industry. Sharon Waxman of the New York Times writes: "As divisions of major media conglomerates concerned with their public image, Hollywood studios have historically shied away from all but the most benign values, like friendship, family and love. Movies with strong points of view — political and particularly religious — have had difficulty receiving green lights."In all fairness, "The Passion" was nominated for "Best Cinematography", "Best Make-Up", and "Best Musical Score". And in all fairness, those are pansy categories. Critics have listed a number of reasons for why they believe "The Passion" was "deservedly overlooked", the number one being lack of critical acclaim. Reviewers were generally split 50/50 on the film as CNN's list of reviews displays. Reviews ranged from "absolutely loved it" to "this is the worst film I've ever seen". Most negative reviews were directly connected to the film's graphic depictions. The fact that all of a sudden, critics decided to get squeamish is a bit ironic. For all the gore and raunchiness that's come out of Hollywood, it's amazing how hard it was for people to watch a depiction that didn't even come close to what Jesus actually looked like during his crucifixion. Oh and then there's that other part about the film assigning Jewish responsibility to Jesus' death. The reality of what the Bible says doesn't really flow well with a lot of peoples' doctrine. Who cares. Critics' issues with the film's violence is merely a smoke screen. Let's just be honest. The main reason why "The Academy" and the other "powers that be" have overlooked "The Passion" is because of the controversy stirred up as a result of cries of anti-Semitism. There is nothing in the film even remotely anti-Semitic, but the accusation alone could kill a career in the historically Jewish-run Hollywood. When Gibson refused to go the typical route and market his film for an Oscar nomination, a man named Patrick Hynes stepped up via his website passionforfairness.com and collected 25,000 signatures on a petition, demanding the Academy consider "The Passion" in some of the main award categories. In an interview with CNN, Hynes declared: "I think, given the success of 'The Passion of the Christ,' other people will start generating some faith-based films. And we're going to watch to see if those continue to get snubbed and ridiculed and receive the same kind of enmity that Hollywood ladled on Mel Gibson and 'The Passion.' And if they are, we're going to speak out against them."Hynes reasons that just as Hollywood has long imposed their values upon the masses, the time has come to flip the script. If the revolution is televised, I might have to re-think my "turn-off the TV" policy. (For reference, here are past "Best Picture" winners over the years.) Comments Posted by: Dr. Dwight Galster at January 28, 2005 6:38 AM I saw neither of these films, however, just being an informed and common sensical person leads me to believe that the Passion was the deserving picture of the two. Posted by: Noelle at January 28, 2005 8:09 AM I was told all my life to believe Jesus died for my/our sins. And I believed it. When I painfully watched "The Passion" it gave me a whole new meaning on "HE died for YOUR sins". Of all those who were crucified in those days, the world has been talking about only 1 for 2000 years, Jesus. Posted by: chardonnay at January 28, 2005 9:10 AM Good analysis. Michael Medved had a relevant WSJ piece on this today; he's an observant Jew. He said the same thing about the anti-Semitism charges. http://www.opinionjournal.com/la/?id=110006213 Posted by: Bleeding heart conservative at January 28, 2005 9:34 AM Who cares? Apparently millions of people do, but in the end the Oscars are a popularity contest for members of the "Academy". "The Passion" is not a popular film for the Academy. It either makes them face the truth of Jesus, or that there is a large segment of the population that want to see a movie about a subject they want to avoid. "There is nothing in the film even remotely anti-Semitic, but the accusation alone could kill a career in the historically Jewish-run Hollywood." Posted by: MarcV at January 28, 2005 9:45 AM "The Ten Commandments", "The Last Temptation of Christ", "The Robe", "Barabbas". "Jesus of Nazareth", and "The Greatest Story Ever Told" (von Sydow, Poitier)were of higher quality. Not all films about, say, Abe Lincoln, are of equal caliber. If Hollywood had it in for Gibson, he would not have won Picture AND Director awards for "Braveheart" in 1995. If they only favored liberal-leaning fare, Michael Moore would be a documentary nominee this year (Streisand is considered liberal,she's never won Best Director, nor has Scorsese). Caviezel didn't outperform Foxx, DiCaprio, Depp, Cheadle and Eastwood in 2004 (not to mention Paul Giamatti and Liam Neeson). It's about merit, not politics. Posted by: Bijan C. Bayne at January 28, 2005 1:36 PM To be politically precise, Hollywood is run by radical Left secularists. Posted by: Lee at January 28, 2005 2:07 PM I seriously doubt that the vast majority of those voting could ever bring themselves to go see the Passion. So not voting for it is hardly a surprise. Exposes what a fraud the whole process is. Posted by: Spaceman at January 28, 2005 4:29 PM "If they only favored liberal-leaning fare, Michael Moore would be a documentary nominee this year" Michael Moore removed his work from consideration for best documentary. He actually thought he would be nominated for best picture. "It's about merit, not politics." HA! I'm not a big fan of Spike Lee, but no one can tell me he should not have been nominated for Malcolm X, and Denzel should most certainly have won his 1st best actor oscar then. And that's only one year. It most certainly is about politics, as least as much, if not more, than merit. Posted by: seal-lover at January 28, 2005 6:20 PM Ambra, Did you see Fahrenheit 9/11? Frankly, I'm tired of having conversations with conservatives that go like this. Me: I've seen The Passion and found it to be a good movie. Did you see Fahrenheit 9/11? In Fahrenheit 9/11, it would be fair to say Moore leaves us with more questions than answers. Moore NEVER comes out and says Bush had anything DIRECTLY to do with 9/11. That would be foolish. I'm just tired of the conservatives who have FAILED to critically view this movie. Wait, no...I'm tired of conservatives who are criticizing the film without having seen it. I got tired of liberals complaining about The Passion, so I went and saw it. Great movie...and this coming from someone who doesn't practice any codified religion. Moore's flick is certainly propaganda...he has even admitted that. But the links he forms in the film leave all who've seen it wondering: "What MORE do you know that you're not telling us, Mr. President?" I agree with the Halle Berry comment, though. I thought her performance in Monster's Ball was electrifying, but Sissy Spacek's performance in In the Bedroom was deserving of the award. Posted by: Mike M. at January 28, 2005 6:49 PM Hi Ambra, I wasn't surprised about the Passion not being nominated. For the same reasons you state in your post and the mere fact that Mel stepped outside of them and basically said "I don't need your approval, I report to someone higher" really "chapped their behinds" :-) I stopped watching the Oscars a few years back when Denzel and Halle were awarded for stereotyped "nothing new or electrifying" roles (and snubbed for the roles that they delivered that were electrifying)... well, that about did it for me (all in the name of saying "hey look, we can give a black person an award"). As you said... BTW, hope to see ya next time we have the DC meetup. God Bless You Posted by: Renee at January 28, 2005 7:42 PM I didn't see F/911 for one reason: I don't want to. I don't like movies/websites/blogs solely based on discrediting an individual. Most of the time that just seems... hateful. Posted by: M. La Roi at January 29, 2005 1:26 PM Ambra, great blog. I found you via Michelle Malkin a few weeks ago and have really enjoyed your writing. You're an exceptionally bright girl and I only wish I had a sliver of your insight and intellect when I was your age. I had to weigh in on this one because I just had a rather bothersome conversation with my boss last week and it's still bugging me. It happens to be the exact opposite experience that Mike M. shared above. In a casual conversation with my extremely (read: loud, um ok, obnoxious) liberal boss, I mentioned that I'd recently rented Passion of the Christ. Before I could finish the "t" in "Christ," he interrupts with "I wouldn't give that guy *any* of my money!" I said I picked it up because my sister had just told me it was really good, but mostly because I was curious about all the controversy (which I still don't quite get). Honestly puzzled, I said that even after seeing it, I still didn't understand the controversy and was intrigued with why he was obviously so offended by it. I told him the one controversial thing I'd heard (and looked for) was the claim of anti-semitism. After seeing it, I didn't find the movie anti-semitic. If anyone looked bad in the film, it was the Romans. I'm Italian... I'm not offended. I then asked him what exactly he found so wrong with the film. He answered very passionately (if that's a pun it wasn't intended) and said, waving his hands, "It's just total zealotry!" and here's the rest of the dialog: Me: Have you seen the movie? ... and he trailed off with more nonsensical reasons for being so put off... so inane they don't even register in my memory at this moment. If I were more brazen, I would have said something along the lines of, "You are a complete ass." Because he is. But it's my boss and I like my job. I guess the moral of my story is that it's not just conservatives who criticize a movie without seeing it. However, to address that thing that you're so tired of, Mike-- We sure have seen enough excerpts of Michael Moore's film to form at least a partial opinion. I've seen many clips on TV, in trailers, and on the internet that clearly express both his intentions and methods. For some people, that's enough. Moreover, there are a plethora of rebuttals-- movies, websites, and reports, including the most thorough and researched, Fifty-nine Deceits in Farenheit 911. Because of all of that, surely you can understand how a "conservative" (or anyone for that matter) can deduce that Moore's film is not quite totally honest without seeing it in its entirety. Conversely, I don't think I'd seen more than a few clips of Gibson's film before I saw it. And they came in the form of normal movie trailers right before its release. I don't recall forming a strong opinion one way or another based on what little I saw. Despite my boss's cockamaimey mass marketing conspiracy theory, I saw no billboards, no posters, and no TV spots. Being that he and I live in same city... San Francisco no less... I fail to see how he (and any number of other outspoken POC haters that I'm surrounded by in my fair city) could have been exposed to Mel Gibson's work enough to form such a strong opinion. I've seen no other films made to specifically and directly contrast it, nor have I seen any intelligent prose explaing what the hell is so wrong with this movie. I challenge you to produce even a small sample of such rebuttals (?) or even legitimate objections to Passion of the Christ. Please! I'm really trying to understand this all. Or, if anyone can cite any program or website that has such a collection of offensive clips from POC, I'd like to see them. And violent scenes don't count. As Ambra noted, that just plain doesn't have any credibility in world that afforded Pulp Fiction an Oscar.
I commend you Mike, for actually seeing POC and forming your own opinion. However, I hardly equate the compromise a "liberal" has to make by going to see Passion of the Christ and that of "conservative" going to Farenheit 911. Liberals are Christians, too, aren't they? And is it even a shred political in nature? Where's the conflict of interest there? Maybe I'm just thick. I still don't get it.
Actually, scratch that again - this should be filed under apples & verginglywerks. Posted by: Rebecca at January 29, 2005 2:40 PM Very good, thoughtful post Rebecca. Posted by: seal-lover at January 30, 2005 7:26 AM Well I saw Farenheit 9/11 and I thought it was an awful movie. Because it was a pack of lies? Because it was blatant and manipulative propaganda? No and no (although both are true). It was simply a poor piece of filmmaking. There have been plenty of movies whose political premise I disagree with that I can still recognize as good films and even enjoy (insert most Robert Redford directed films here). 9/11 is not one of them, it's just really bad. Sorry. Posted by: Adoniram Lipton at January 31, 2005 2:20 AM i don't know... i saw "the passion" and walked away less than amazed. i can see how christians could have been deeply affected by it, but if you're among those who don't believe that he was the son of god, sent to die for the sins of humanity, it ends up being just a pretty piece of cinema. (it was really beautifully shot, i thought: the whole affair looked like old religious paintings brought to life.) personally, i thought it was lacking because it didn't really go into the 3 years jesus spent living and teaching: mostly we just watched him die. a horrible death is still..well.. horrible, but plenty of people were crucified, drawn and quartered, burned at the stake and the like. if you didn't walk into the theatre already in love with jesus, watching him die just sort of drags on after a while, because you never got to really meet the man onscreen. Posted by: kim at January 31, 2005 10:42 AM What Kim said ("Gandhi" won Oscars because it didn't center of his assassination). Posted by: Bijan C. Bayne at January 31, 2005 12:57 PM Pardon the mispelling- I meant didn't center "on" his assassination. Posted by: Bijan C. Bayne at January 31, 2005 4:00 PM Believe both Hynes and yourself are on to something here, though I don't think you go far enough..... There obviously is a market for faith based films (8th highest grossing ever- wow) which fly in the face of Hollywood's secular leftist sensibilities. But there is also an untapped market for movies catering to secular rightist(read conservative) beliefs. And if there's money to be made, someone will soon be out there serving these markets. Already you see heretical rightist values being slipped into movies- overtly in the South Park guys' puppet movie, and covertly in the Incredibles (note the faint whiff of Ayn Rand objectivism throughout). As movie making technology evolves and gets ever cheaper (think Sky Captain being made mainly on a Macintosh), Hollywood's monopoly on the movie industry will be smashed. At some point, Hollywood will adapt and allow for contrasting ideas or be crushed. I'm betting in the next 5-10 years we'll be seeing the revolution you mentioned in your post. It'll be roughly analogous to the blog revolution breaking the monopoly of ideas from the tv news dopes in Manhattan. Until then, the balcony is closed. Posted by: Idler at February 2, 2005 7:45 AM Wow! great defense of the passion, i wholeheartedly agree with your views. Posted by: rebecca at February 5, 2005 6:28 PM |
 "...playful philosophizing" Dan Leroy, National Review Online
|
|||
 |
|
|
|
Tuesday morning, the much anticipated Oscar nominations were announced, and as was expected, Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ", the 8th highest grossing film of all time, was overlooked in all the categories that count.
|
|
I say "ni-cola" short i long o. Does that help?
I'm enjoying your writing. May God continue to bless you.
Dr. Galster
South Dakota State University