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.
i thought the son of god was also hercules and dionysis
This was one movie that was best seen in a theater. The darkness, the isolation from things normal and of comfort, the gasps of the crowd, the THX sound of the blows... I saw it twice. I'm sort of planning on seeing it again this Lent if they re-release it.
It served to remind that Christianity is not about being "nice", not about feeling "comfortable", not about acting "PC." It's about blood and guts and death and resurrection and hope, and from it sprang the entire modern world we know today.
you would be wrong.
you would be wrong.
For the record, I did not like the Passion of the Christ and saw many flaws. Keep in mind I am a professing Christian and my wife and I were responsible for coordinating and getting tickets for our church group who saw it together. We were there with our pastor as well as our former pastor.
It had no emotional impact on me whatsoever and I was even a bit negative about it as we left the theater. It simply NEVER suspended disbelief for me.
I thought the raindrop was cool though.
I think this is one of those "emperor has no clothes" sort of things. The movie is on a pedastal for too many people. As a movie I really didn't think it was very good.
I'm a big fan of Mel Gibson and have no political motivation behind my dislike of the movie. I just didn't like it.
It's comments like this that make me wish Mr. Gibson had made a film about the teachings of Jesus, and not his bloody death.
Where do you get the idea that ALL the people who nominate films for awards didn't like it? I wouldn't be very surprised at people who know about film not wanting to give this awards--it's a monotonous masochistic rant, nicely photographed but derivative in many other ways.
It wasn't the top-grossing film of the year, that was Shrek 2. Box office doesn't translate into awards, either--folks don't nominate something for an award just because it makes money. Sideways is getting lots of awards and it isn't making tons of cash; meanwhile Shrek 2 and Spiderman 2 aren't winning too many Best Picture awards.
I know someone who has a bootleg Passion of Christ DVD.
I find that funny in a bizarre way.
I dont believe this movie was intended for those without faith but for those who could use a reality check on the sufferings of Christ for us.
We all moan about how "things never go our way", how cold it is, losing our hair, having to eat macaroni & cheese two days in a row.
It is a visual for professing Christians that cant fully comprehend unless they were there, watching our savior get tortured for what He is cant ground us and open our eyes to the commission we have on earth.
Watching the film makes us realize to not sweat the small stuff and work for God to help save as many people as we can.
I dont think those in hollywood were even the target. Entertainment wise, The Passion was not going to win anything. If there was a category for "Reality Check for Christians" then i suppose it would have won hands down.
Everyone who has the Passion in Saudi Arabia got it as a bootleg.
SON OF GOD CONCEPT WAS GRECO-ROMAN AND TOTALLY ALIEN TO JUDAISM. BUT WHY WOULD THE CITIZENS OF ROME FOLLOW A HUMAN DESCENDANT OF KING DAVID WHO WAS TO RESTORE THE DAVIDIC LINE AND REDEEM THE JEWISH NATION FROM ROMAN OPPRESSION.
I see you've figured out where the caps lock key is.
Is it possible that you could post coherent sentences?
Someone I know offered me one ... I read her the riot act.
I much prefer the Greatest Story Ever Told.
Anyone know what point avitot is trying to make??
I DON'T KNOW. YOU TELL ME. MAYBE HE WASN'T SUPPOSED TO BE AN EARTHLY RULER AT ALL. DID YOU EVER CONSIDER THAT?
My point is not that others were not executed but that the religious significance of the event is WHO was executed. I would have thought that to be obvious to even non-Christians.
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.