Posted on 11/19/2004 8:17:46 PM PST by brigada
http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,15380,00.html?tnews
by Josh Grossberg Nov 19, 2004, 3:55 PM PT
The Passion's not making too much of a play for Oscar.
Mel Gibson and his company, Icon Productions, have vowed not to spend a dime on advertisements hyping his religious blockbuster, The Passion of the Christ, for Academy Award consideration.
a d v e r t i s e m e n t
Gibson's publicist, Alan Nierob, says the ad abstention is an attempt to remove the ultra-competitive, high-stakes campaigns from the Oscar equation. Studios regularly pump millions into TV, radio and print ads trying to sway voters, and the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences has been griping for years about how such campaigns tarnish the awards.
"Every studio has wanted to do this and none of them has had the guts to do it," Nierob tells E! Online. "It's basically about bringing it back to what the Academy's been talking about for many years now--taking out the competitive nature of the Oscar campaigns and getting back to. . .that camaraderie feeling that the Academy envisioned initially."
Or, as Gibson's partner at Icon, Bruce Davey, tells the Los Angeles Times, "As far as joining in a contest to see who can spend the most dollars campaigning for a film, we do not propose to enter into that game...[The Oscars] were conceived to acknowledge artistic merit and performance, not to acknowledge the ability to buy numerous ads and try to swing it one way or another."
Although Icon won't bankroll any ads, the company will host several screenings for voters and will also send out between 7,000 and 8,000 DVD copies of The Passion to members of the Academy and other Industry guilds that determine award nominees.
Not that The Passion suffers from lack of exposure.
Using a grassroots marketing strategy that targeted church groups, The Passion became one of the 10 highest grossing films of all time with more than $625 million in worldwide ticket sales. Not bad for a picture that Gibson financed by himself for $25 million and then shot entirely in the ancient languages Latin and Aramaic.
And it's not like Gibson need the hardware, either. He already owns golden guys for directing and producing 1995's Braveheart.
Nierob also played down speculation that Gibson's no-ads stance is actual a stealthy attempt to raise The Passion's profile.
"There's no other motivation here," says Nierob. "Do they think the film should be considered in all categories? Absolutely and it will be. It's not like they need the money."
Despite mixed reviews and charges of anti-Semitism, The Passion's monster box office could put it in contention in for several major prizes, including Best Picture, Best Director and Best Actor for star Jim Caviezel. Nominations are due out Jan. 25.
There are also conspiracy theories floating around Hollywood suggesting that the Academy wants The Passion to score nominations to counteract any nods for Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, thus giving both red and blue states a vested interest in the outcome.
In any case, Gibson's decision to ditch the decade-long Tinseltown trend to pour millions of dollars into "For Your Consideration" ads and sometimes hostile campaigns (see: Miramax's Shakespeare in Love vs. DreamWorks' Saving Private Ryan) has earned props from the folks behind the Oscars.
Frank Pierson, the president of the Motion Picture Academy, has frowned upon such promotional tactics and overseen rule changes seeking to limit such overblown, win-at-all-costs campaigns.
"This kind of aggressive, competitive campaigning is really destructive, and it's destructive in every sense," Pierson tells the Times. "It puts the less well-heeled at a disadvantage the same way a political campaign does for less well-heeled candidates. But I also think it wearies the public and it cheapens the whole process."
So will Mel's Passion play make any real substantive changes in the way Hollywood conducts its Oscar campaigns?
"Only time will tell," says Nierob.
In related award news, the Hollywood Foreign Press Association has deemed The Passion of the Christ ineligible for the Best Drama category because it is a non-English film. The Passion will be eligible for the Best Foreign-Language Film, as well as categories like Best Director, Best Actor and Best Screenplay. Globe nominations will be announced Dec. 16.
Meanwhile, Mikhail Moore-onski is working like mad to get an Oscar for his crap-umentary!!!
Thats just as well, because I seriously doubt he will win anything. There's no way H'wood rewards Mel for this. It was the best picture, and those that saw it know it, that's enough.
I am becoming a very big fan Mel Gibson. Movies should stand on their own merit when it comes to Awards. Either it's worthy or its accolades or it isn't. Mr. Gibson received 370 million awards from those who went to see his movie. I doubt that an Oscar is material to him at this point in his life.
In immortal words of Theresa Heinz, the Academy can SHOVE IT!
Mel will walk away empty handed. I predict Moore-on will walk away with no fewer than 10 Oscars. Don't underestimate the Hollywood Leftists ability to cut off their noses to spite their faces. By-golly, they'll show us stupid red-staters.
Good. The Oscars is snobery in its finest. The lamest crap wins oscars.
I'm sure Mel did not make this movie for any "award" from that bunch in Hollywood.
I have no doubt Mel was on assignment.
Preeecisely. It'll be a lib lovefest. After all, last year they rewarded a moral movie, so this year it will need to be some vile movie they consider worthy of praise.
Film attendance during the 30s and 40s is still the all time high.
They've already shown me enough. I haven't watched the Oscars in years, and I'm not going to this year... even if Mel is up for all the awards.
I went to see Passion with my parents and sister before my mother died from ovarian cancer. The movie will always be special to me. Other than that, I haven't been to a theater in ages.
I do admit that I'm considering going to see National Treasure but I don't know the politics of the stars. I don't think Nick Cage has been a lunatic. It doesn't bother me how a star might vote... if he keeps his mouth shut, nobody would ever know. It's the can't-shut-up-to-save-their-lives bunch like Babs and Dixie Chicks that I'm unwilling to support in any way whatsoever.
It will be a travesty if Mel is NOT nominated as Best Director.
I guess though the public was pissed it didn't stop them from watching movies. But I believe you are right. I think I read that in Michael Medved's book from 1992. How the gross numbers in ticket sales mask the fact that movie attendance per week has declined. I notice nowadays only kids watch movies in the theatres. Most anyone over 30 rarely see movies.
I refuse to watch Mystic River or anything that stars Sarandon, Penn, or Robbins.
Adjusted for inflation, 'Gone With the Wind' is still the highest grossing film of all time.
And it doesn't help that most good movies don't get beyond the big cities. And when they win awards people always say "Hey I never heard of that!" Uh folks...blame the distributors and theater owners who think you're a rube.
Mom told me about going to the "show" when she was young. It was an all-day event, complete with Movie-tone News, a serial, and double feature. Sometimes they watched everything twice. Movie theaters were one of the few air conditioned buildings back in those days, and I imagine it was a pleasant place to spend a hot Saturday.
Someone will have to tell me how the Oscars turn out. I don't watch that garbage.
Also film attendance declined in the 50s because of television. And the studios trotted out gimick after gimick to get people back in the theater (3D! Cinemascope!)
My home is my castle. I refuse to spend one second listening to people who hate everything I believe in.
Actually the book was a huge best seller before the movie. There was huge speculation over who would play the parts and gossip columists castigated David O Selznick for not choosing an American gilm to play Scarlett Ohara. But Southerners thought...better an English girl then a Yankee. :-)
I've just never understood this attitude. Do you refuse to watch movies from socalist or communist countires as well since the profits enrich a goverment that hates everytyhing you believe in? You're missing a lot of great movies if so.
GWTW (the book) was an absolute sensation, and there was much speculation about who would play Rhett and Scarlet. Clark Gable was a given, but Vivien Leigh was an unknown, at least in America. Her selection created quite a stir.
The wife and I can never agree on a movie to watch, but that has us both intrigued. I don't think Nick is a lefty, but if he is he has the sense to keep his pie hole shut.
In a transparent, pandering attempt to coopt religious dems, I predict Gibson's movie will, in fact, win an oscar from those communist bastards in hollywood.
Really? I thought it only sold 10,000 copies prior to the movie?
It was quite an international cast. Leigh from India. Rhett the American. Who played Ashley? Well he was from England. And De Havilland lived in Japan.
The book came out in 1936 and won the Pulitzer prize. It was a tremendous bestseller before the film in '39. Dehaviland (who is still alive btw) was born to missionary parents in Japan but was already a movie star in America (The Adventures of Robin Hood). Leigh was born to British parents in India and was farily well known in Britain but not here.
Oh Okay. I didn't know it was such a success.
Well the cinematic resume of the Dixie Chicks is hard to resist! /sarcasm
I just meant the whole package...not wanting to listen to those you disagree with. I don't mean to disparage people's strongly held beliefs but I'm secure enough in mine to always want to seek out those with whom I disagree so I could further embolden my own by constantly thinking about them. Just a matter of personal taste of course.
Yep, I do. I'm not a huge fan of foreign films to begin with, so that's not a fair basis. Let's get back to what I was really talking about.
I will not hear some quack like Sean Penn annoint himself as the arbiter of what America ought to be doing, and read of his exploits in Bagdad, and know that he reviles my President and thinks that anyone who supports him is an idiot... and then turn around and put bread on his table. I don't like him, don't respect him, and won't support him.
Same with the rest of the lunatic fringe of Hollywood. Now, I won't hold anyone's sane beliefs against them. I can imagine that some of the movies I've enjoyed in the past star democrats. But at least they're not on the TV taking offensive positions, ranting, and insulting the very people who put them where they are.
You know, I have really learned not to give a flying squirrel about politics in Hollywood. I don't care anymore. I go to the movies to see a (hopefully) good film. Nothing more. Nothing less.
See my post 33, in which I attempt to clarify.
Like I said, it's a personal choice.
But politics and art work in strange ways. For instance there hasn't been a film more sympathetic to the victims of violent crimes in recent years then Tim Robbins's 'Dead Man Walking' with Penn and Sarandon. It got a rave review in National Review. And legendarily liberal films (Duck Soup...) were often made by conservative directors (Leo Mccarey, who made the legendary anti comminust film 'My Son John').
"In a transparent, pandering attempt to coopt religious dems, I predict Gibson's movie will, in fact, win an oscar from those communist bastards in hollywood."
I tend to agree with you.
Does anyone else think the Oscars tend to be conservative in general? 'American Beauty' was an anomaly. The Best Picture winners tend to be pretty old fashioned.
That explains Annie Hall winning over SW in 1977.
I think they were embarrased to give it to such a money maker at the risk being swayed by dollar signs. They snubbed JAws and E.T. as well. And say what you will about Woody Allen, Annie Hall virtually invented the modern romantic comedy.
Somehow, I just can't picture Gibson up there crying and thanking all of the Academy people for honoring him and believing in him.
Nope.
I bet Mel's gonna be at home hanging around with his woman and kids.
Good on him.
He seemed quite touched when he won his Oscars 9 years ago.
Who even understood Annie Hall?
Awards mean nothing, the box office means everything. Those who say otherwise won an award for something no one paid to see.
In fact, he put out this film in spite of the "system's" all out attempts to prevent him from doing so. And the fact that it was successful beyond anyone's wildest dreams is just more salt that got rubbed into the wound from the perspective of the coked-out Hollywood "power players" hunching young bimbos (or pretty boys) on their office couches.
So, for the Academy to reward this "perfidy" with an Oscar would be about the same as a labor union giving its "Worker of the Year" award to some scab who crossed the picket line.
So 'Three Men and a Baby' and 'Jackass: The Movie' are greater films then 'Citizen Kane' and The TReasure of the Sierre Madre which were box office failures? It doesn't work that way sad to say. Many good films get overlooked, many bad films get commerically benighted by the 15 year olds who pack muliplexes every weekend.
He hadn't been mercilessly savaged and ridiculed, or called a "Nazi" and a "Jew Hater" and a "fundamentalist" by his "colleagues" then. Wouldn't surprise me if his outlook had changed since.
Considering the size of the movie viewing population then and now, I don't know how much more of a success those movies were. If you're making a movie for awards sake fine, but if you're making a movie to make money, which I assume most people do, then box office is what matters.
Of course--no television.
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.