Posted on 01/31/2005 8:41:38 PM PST by The Loan Arranger
One was a movie about an American filmmaker and aviation pioneer who ambitiously and recklessly became a multi-millionaire; the other was about the Son of God.
One was directed by a legendary filmmaker; the other came from an Oscar-winning director. One film's protagonist descended into madness and died from syphilis; the other's was murdered, buried, and rose from the dead, bringing hope to humanity.
One is a moderate success; the other a $370 million blockbuster that rocked Hollywood's expectations and perspective.
These two films—Martin Scorsese's The Aviator and Mel Gibson's The Passion of The Christ—earned a total of 14 Oscar nominations between them last week. Eleven went to The Aviator, including Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Actor (Leonardo DiCaprio), Best Supporting Actress (Cate Blanchett), and Best Supporting Actor (Alan Alda). Only three—Best Cinematography, Best Makeup, and Best Original Score—went to The Passion.
Many Passion fans are furious, and the media is rife with accusations of religious prejudice. In USA Today, Michael Medved criticized Hollywood's "pathological discomfort" with religion. At The Wall Street Journal, he claimed that Fahrenheit 9/11—Michael Moore's Bush-bashing documentary—is already dated, but "The Passion will endure." The Reverend Louis Sheldon, founder of the Traditional Values Coalition, told Beliefnet, "There's no question that bigotry and prejudice is rank among the liberal elite of Hollywood. Why would they want to recognize the `ancient of days,' Jesus Christ, unless they want to bow their knee to him? They would prefer to be those silent ones in the crowd, that don't yell crucify, but turned their eyes away from the reality of his crucifixion."
(Excerpt) Read more at christianitytoday.com ...
So true! Touche!
I doubt many in Hollywodd have even heard of Christ.
Their actions indicate a total ignorance of the Son of God and His teachings.
Complaints about the violence. Ignoring what really happened when a man was flogged and then crucified. Liberal Christians want to avert their eyes from the brutality of Our Lord's death and look ahead to the "happy ending," the resurrection. That is because the Resurrection can be treated as a "myth." and the crucifixion cannot be. In this way they are like the Muslims who died that Jesus died on the cross.
It's also funny how the article says Mel Gibson is an Oscar-winner, so that means he should win another. Mel Gibson is a GOOD director; Martin Scorsese is a GREAT director, whose work has never been recognized by the Academy, and he deserved recognition before Gibson was even known as an actor, let alone a director.
They gave nothing to Mikey Moore this year, and that's a movie they LOVED; they nominated Gibson's movie for three awards. That is a lot more than I ever expected. And it seems a reasonable middle-ground for me, at least. It's their little group, they can award whatever movie they want--outsiders don't have the right to tell them who to vote for.
But the bottom line for me is the complaints that we want a group we loathe to give us an award. Why?
How could they not have heard of him? They take His name in vain all the time./sarcasm off
All that aside, to ignore a movie that has done so well, both domestically and abroad when that movie is very religious shows their bias. They're ridiciulous complaining about the violence, when, IIRC, "Training Day" got Denzel Washington is Oscar. Denzel was great in that movie (which was simply OK, imo). If they really had a problem with violence *choke* *sputter* bwahaha...then why reward someone who has a role in one that is VERY violent? I would go on, but I'm too disgusted.
"Many Passion fans are furious"
I'm certainly not furious, and I'm a Passion fan.
Hollywood produces most of the dirtiest and filthiest movies that exist on the planet.
No way do I want "The Passion" to be included in their list of "honorees."
Well and truly said. We diminish ourselves by whining about this minor blip.
If politicians can be corrupted, Hollywood actors (or whoever are voting) are even more easily bought.
<< Does Oscar's Passion Snub Imply Religious Prejudice? >>
Of course it does. [As PC has so beautifully illustrated]
But -- more than that [And -- on his side, of course, I was in the middle of it at the time it began and was shocked at the naked hatred -- evil even -- that was revealed] Hollyweird has froth-and-foam-flecked loathed and despised Mr Gibson since he had the poofter prince of wales played by Peter Hanly as an .... um ..... poofter -- had Patrick McGoohan's brilliant Longshanks chuck the mincing poncing object of his son's depaved deviancy out the castle window -- and then had his "wife" impregnated by an Intact Man.
The understanding, shown in Braveheart's brilliant symbolism, of the crowd among whom he passes but by whom he is not sullied, will be forgiven in Hollywood right after Tailgunner Joe gets a postumous lifetime services oscar and is named Patron Saint of the academy.
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.