Posted on 01/18/2005 12:15:26 AM PST by kattracks
In lemming-like fashion, SAG, DGA, WGA and other would-be kingmakers of the cinematic world have chosen to give their royal nods of approval to the exact same batch of films.
Why such lockstep behavior? The explanation has to do with three Tinseltown myths. Myth #1 is that the Golden Globes non-recognition was an equal opportunity snub, with an even-handed skipping over of both Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11” and Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ.”The truth is that Moore's film was never in the running because the rules of the approximately 90-member Hollywood Foreign Press Association (HFPA) render documentaries ineligible for consideration. There is no separate category for Best Documentary, so regardless of whether or not one considers Moore’s movie a documentary, for Globes purposes, it was classified as one.
Quite the opposite with regard to “The Passion of the Christ.” The HFPA had wrongfully tagged Gibson’s movie as a foreign film based on its use of Aramaic and Latin dialogue. But as Gibson informed me, the movie is not a foreign film. It’s a dead-language film.
What the HFPA essentially did was lump an American-made movie together with Chinese, Spanish, French and other obscure and low-budget foreign-produced films. Many award watchers speculated that this would make it easier for Gibson’s film to snag a Globe.
But you can’t win if you can’t participate. And the HFPA made sure “The Passion of the Christ” would be barred from the get-go. It was never even nominated.
Reasonable people came to one conclusion: Hollywood bias.
But what is the nature of the prejudice?
Myth #2 is that Hollywood’s bias regarding “The Passion” has to do with politics.
Red states/blue states. Hollywood’s embracing of all things Democrat. These are the typical ways the rebuff of “The Passion of the Christ” is explained.
However, an analysis of the Golden Globe winners shows that the slight of Gibson’s movie is not about Tinseltown’s political groupthink mentality. It’s about content.
Take the case of Clint Eastwood. Eastwood took the Golden Globe for Best Directing for “Million Dollar Baby.” Eastwood is known for having libertarian and conservative beliefs. The New York Post recently described him as “Republican-leaning.” But Eastwood’s film content of late has not exactly been in keeping with his aforementioned reputation. In fact, his material of choice has been more of the P.C. variety, and, of course, Hollywood adores that.
“Million Dollar Baby” certainly has some praiseworthy elements. But watching the last 20 minutes of the film is like watching a different movie, with the culture-of-death agenda readily transparent.
In looking at the film content of other Golden Globe nominees and award winners, we see the same culture-of-death (“Vera Drake” and “The Sea Inside”) and culture-of-infidelity (“Sideways” and “Closer”) themes pop up again and again.
Myth #3 is that the Golden Globes gives us a preview of the Oscars and has similar stature.
The Golden Globes and the Academy Awards differ, particularly in terms of the membership composition of the organizations.
The HFPA has been known to elicit some snickers from Hollywood insiders. As Robin Williams alluded in his acceptance speech at the Globes ceremony, the roughly 90 members of the HFPA are best known for their ability to go to fine hotels, eat gourmet food and down glasses of champagne, with studios and producers picking up the tab. Williams cited the 1982 Golden Globe that went to Pia Zadora for “New Star of the Year” only a few weeks after her wealthy spouse had jetted HFPA members to Vegas for a junket.
Reportedly, only about two dozen of HFPA members are actually full-time foreign journalists. Most are part-time freelancers for small-time overseas magazines and newspapers. In contrast, the Academy Awards are determined by the votes of approximately 6,000 film industry professionals.
It is hoped that the Academy is about to dispel some myths of its own.
There's really no need to see conspiracies everywhere. Some people just didn't like The Passion.
Some people just happen to be ALL of the people who vote for these awards?
It was the top grossing film of the year (I think), if that menas anything anymore.
I was one of those folks that waited until it was out on DVD so I could immerse myself in it without the hassles of going to the theatre. When I got my hands on it I settled in and watched it with all my attention. I of course had heard the controversy surrounding it and was ready to find out what the buzz was all about. Cinematographically extremely well made. Great period costumes and sets, intrigue and character development all well done. But I failed to see some sort of message. Just looked like long beating, in a primitive police state culminating in an execution. The artistic license that suggested something supernatural or religious was pretty corny actually. That demonic "thing" that shows up from time to time, and then the temple destruction. Mmmm, okay. That was its weak point. I believe that in many respects it was overrated, and personally thought Scorcese's Last Temptation was a better film. Anyway, that's one amateur film reviewer's opinion.
Count me in as one who did not like it. I would have rather had it deal more with His teachings and less with his violent death.
No doubt his death was as brutal as Mel dipicted it to be. Maybe Mel wanted everone to feel uncomfortable watching his movie.
The movie was called "The Passion of the Christ," not "The Teachings of the Christ." His suffering, death, and subsequent resurrection was the whole point of the movie--Christ's passion. He allowed himself to go through it for us all.
I guess I took it differently with my perspective of my faith.
The part where Jesus was on the cross rasping out some words with what was left of his dying strength and the man hanging besides him cried out "LOOK! He prays for you!" got to me along with about 20 other moments in the film. Listening to those around me gasping and sobbing really brought me into it as well. In a way you missed an event by not seeing it in the theatre surrounded by the faithful. Everyone in the theatre, we, as a group experienced what Jesus suffered through, seemingly endlessly, in the last 24 hours of his life. I wasn't subjected to just the suffering of Jesus as portrayed in the film, but the collective experience of what everyone felt as we witnessed it.
I was never so moved by a film in all my life.
Sigh.
His suffering, death, and subsequent resurrection was the whole point of the movie--Christ's passion. He allowed himself to go through it for us all.
You tell um Brother.
a. It's just a movie.
b. Mel made a fortune, why sweat it?
c. Who cares?
Just my 2 cents
Agree. The massive publicity prior to the film being release resulted in more people seeing the film than they could ever have imagined.
didn't gibson ever hear of matzoh?
Exactly. This article's a looking and speculating just for the sake of writing a story. There's nothing there. "The Passion" had zero entertainment value, but then the story of The Passion is not entertaining and never has been. In fact, the movie was dry, dull and boring from a movie watcher's perspective. On the other hand, the movie brought alive Christ's pain for all to see. When one views The Passion, you're not popping something entertaining into the DVD player as you would Spiderman. You're getting ready to view a religious experience.
Personally, I didn't like The Passion at all because it only told half the story. Without the missing half, the part The Passion depicted is absolutely meaningless. It was just another Roman execution.
It was #3, behind Shrek 2 and Spider-Man 2.
BTTT
You mean they crucified more than one Son of God?
Or it might be that the film was little more than one long beating with some arthouse touches like everyone speaking in Latin. (And they said studying Latin would never come in useful.) The Passion just wasn't a good film.
Then again, I am agnostic and pretty apathetic about religion. Maybe you have to really believe to fully get the Passion.
i thought the son of god was also hercules and dionysis
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.