Does `The Passion' have Oscar legs?

Daily News via Miami Herald ^ | Mar 11, 04 | Jack Matthews

[churchillbuff]

Does `The Passion' have Oscar legs?

BY JACK MATHEWS

New York Daily News

(KRT) - If you think the debate over Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" will be over once the movie has taken in its last piece of silver at theaters, consider next year's Oscar race. Will it or won't it receive nominations? And if not, true believers will say, why in the hell not?

By one measure, "Passion" hardly seems like a movie at all. It's not entertainment; rather, it's a religious experience, and one that millions of people want to have. But technically it qualifies and will have to be deconstructed and evaluated by the various Academy branches.

Regardless of how one feels about Gibson's version of the Crucifixion, it's a first-rate physical production. It's brilliantly filmed by cinematographer Caleb Deschanel, a four-time Oscar nominee. And given the graphic flesh trauma borne by blood-drenched star James Caviezel, one would think a makeup nomination is in the bag.

But what of the movie itself, and Gibson as Best Director? Is "Passion" going to divide Academy voters along the blue state/red state fault line the way it seems to be dividing the general population? It only takes 20 percent of a branch's membership to get a nomination.

For me, "Passion" has one huge flaw that should keep it off both the picture and director ballots. Gibson, at cross-purposes with his esthetic and spiritual selves, fell back on his worst Hollywood instincts in the treatment of his story's villains.

The sadistic Roman soldiers who have such a fine time scourging Jesus are played like caricatures of the inbred hillbillies in "Deliverance." And Barabbas, the Jewish prisoner whose freedom the temple priests choose over Jesus' life, is played like the evil spawn of Quasimodo and Aileen Wuornos.

Gibson may be accurately dramatizing the scriptural dialogue in the Barabbas scene, but nowhere in the Bible does it say he was a B-movie homicidal maniac who seemed certain to kill the minute he was free. In fact, all biblical sources describe Barabbas as a political prisoner who killed during an insurrection.

That Gibson envisioned him as a foul-faced cartoon monster is both bad filmmaking and evidence for those who think he was feeding anti-Semitism even if he didn't intend to.

[Burkeman1]

That is funny huh?

[familyop]

I don't know for sure. ...been overloaded with personal things, should have some mail on that or will call someone tomorrow, if he's home after work. We're hoping for a Second Amendment supporter, for sure. Are you here, too? Or have you seen how many bear and lion are here, these days? And the deer on the roads are getting to be like the roaches in the east! ...can't drive a few miles without stopping, waving and screaming at them to move their parties off the roads. Thus, the predators are multiplying faster.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Ha! There will be NO mention of THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST at next year's Oscar awards or any other year. Hollywood will continue to resent the success of this movie, as well as its very existence, for as long as there are Christians around to tell them "we told you so."

Caviezel might get nominated for best actor, since it always helps the actor's performance if he dies, but he won't win.

Gibson will have to content himself with his billion-dollar box office and with knowing that he's touched the lives of more people than the rest of Hollywood has put together.

[Commie Basher]

A more interesting question, will it be nominated for an Independent Spirit Award, given by the Independent Feature Project to honor indie films. THE PASSION is a natural for it. And though tilting left, they did nominate THE APOSTLE. Even won some awards.

[Texas2step]

we disagree with the stuff from Emmerich, the greater emphasis on the crucifixion than Jesus' life and resurrection, the greater emphasis on Mary, the untimely woman androgynous Satan, and so forth.

Why didn't you just say so, instead of linking in to the delusional writings of Barbara Aho? This article that you are linking to adds nothing whatsoever to a cognitive arguement about the directors "artistic license".

I can understand someone's view who would disagree with Gibson's use of "extra biblical" props. I personally do not believe the ones used are in any way in disagreement with the scripture, but I won't attack you for thinking otherwise.

However, to use Aho's garbage for your defense is disingenious, at best, but closer to a dishonest smear campaign against the movie, Mel Gibson, and the others involved in the making of this movie, in my opinion.

Smearing Mel through half-truth's, innuendo, and deluded theories sure isn't biblical either, is it? It's closer to the attacks that the libs are throwing around.