Skip to comments.More Hollywood Snubs of Gibson's 'Passion'
Posted on 01/06/2005 2:54:25 PM PST by gina girl
This week the Producers Guild of America announced its nominees for Best Picture of the Year, and "The Passion" was notably absent. The PGA also failed to nominate Mel Gibson, Bruce Davey or Steve McEveety for its Darryl F. Zanuck Producer of the Year Award. Some speculate that this was due to "The Passion's" "conservative politics" - an ironic thought, in that Darryl F. Zanuck was a conservative who produced such Biblical epics as "David & Bathsheba" and "The Egyptian." Such ironies are rife in Hollywood today. More bad news for "Passion" this week: In its "Oscar: Special Report" Variety also announced the hottest contenders for the Best Actor and Best Screenplay Oscars.
Again, anyone associated with "The Passion" was notably absent. Jim Caviezel, who delivered the year's most impressive performance in the demanding role of Christ, was completely ignored.
Instead, Variety gave acting kudos to Gael Garcia Bernal for his role as Che Guevara in "The Motorcycle Diaries," Kevin Bacon for his role as a pedophile in "The Woodsman," and Liev Schrieber for his role as a psychotic conservative politician in "The Manchurian Candidate."
Last month the Golden Globes completely shut out "The Passion," denying it even a single nomination.
The Hollywood Foreign Press Association, the organization behind the Golden Globes, instead gave nominations to "Vera Drake" (about a kindly abortionist), "Kinsey" (about the discredited sex researcher), and "The Sea Inside" (about a paraplegic's campaign to be euthanized).
In addition, the nation's top film critics have ignored "The Passion" and other quality films in their "Best of 2004" lists, simply because of perceived conservative "Red State" themes.
Roger Ebert of Ebert & Roper at the Movies, Kenneth Turan of the LA Times, Joel Morgenstern of the Wall Street Journal, A.O. Scott of the New York Times, Richard Schickel of Time Magazine, and the prestigious National Board of Review all ignored "The Passion" in their Top Ten Lists.
In order to correct this imbalance, the Liberty Film Festival - Hollywood's first openly conservative film festival - has announced its own "Best of 2004" list.
Believing that Hollywood and its institutions have grown pitifully out of touch with the American public, the Liberty Film Festival honored twenty conservative films that exhibited a "high level of craftsmanship, a willingness to challenge the status quo, and a celebration of liberty." Best Narrative Film went to "The Passion" directed by Mel Gibson, Best Documentary Film went to "In The Face of Evil: Reagan's War in Word & Deed" directed by Stephen K. Bannon, and Best Short went to "Submission," directed by slain Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh.
One hopes that as alternative Hollywood continues to grow, liberal Hollywood will realize that it can't continue to ignore the mainstream values of average Americans. If the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences ignores "The Passion" in its Oscar nominations, it runs the risk of alienating the American public - and diminishing what was once a fine institution into a sad irrelevancy. Then only a new wave artists and intellectuals - who share mainstream America's values - will fill the void left in Hollywood's wake.
Govindini Murty, Co-Director of the Liberty Film Festival, lives in Los Angeles.
I really doubt whether Mel Gibson really cares what Hollywood thinks of him at this point. He didn't make this film so that he could win an Oscar. When the "beautiful" people's time is up, their celebrity won't save them, but Mel's reward will be much greater than a little golden statue.
These newsgroups are really thin skinned. Ebert was one of the few mainstream critics to give the Passion 4 stars. He just hapepned to see 10 other films he thought were better. Movies are like that. Different people have different taste.
It's not a political movie, it's a religious movie.
And neither is its being ignored by awards political. 'The Last Temptation of Christ' wasn't nominated for a Best Picture Oscar either and no one claimed that was a sign of Hollywood's inherent conservatism.
Who says art doesn't imitate life?
Only Hollywood would give someone an Oscar Nom for playing a pervert. If he wins will he mention the torture young children go thru at the hands of these criminals. hollywood is beyond sick.
I know this may be a shock to Newsmax, but just because it made piles of cash, that doesn't mean it should get nominated for awards. And if it WAS nominated, that would put the kibbosh on their (accurate) theory that Hollywood is liberal. I'm not saying it's a bad movie, but tons of movies don't get nominated. And who cares if these jerks don't award it anything? If I were Gibson I'd wonder if I did something wrong if my movie won praise from these dopes--who will probably nominate F 9-11 for Best Picture.
What if someone won an award for portraying Iago or Richard III who are as evil as characters get? Would you complain about that?
His vindication is in his wallet. These others are fasting going down the toilet.
Yes. But at least it would be historical. This is a fictional character from some a holes sick mind.
My sister has had a drinking problem for years. She went to see "Passion" last summer and the next day went to an AA meeting the next day. She has been attending sometimes 3 meetings a day ever since (6 mos) and at Christmas she asked me if she could go to mass with my wife and I. Personally this movie is too good for an Oscar.
Please tell me that you are not comparing the Passion to a film that raked in an astonishing 8.3 million dollars????? 1988's "Action Jackson" wasn't nominated either what does that tell you?
So fiction shouldn't deal with those things? Out goes Dostoevsky? BTW: Shakespeare's Richard III was much more evil then the historical figure. It was an old fashioned hatchet job. If everyone on stage is a virtuous person there is no drama.
And in spite of tremendous publicity and controversy, the movie was a dismal failure at the box office and was not critically acclaimed by the reviewers. Had it been nominated that would have been incontrivertible evidence of Hollywood's hatred of religion in general and Christianity in particular.
Commercial success is not the primary criteria for merit awards. If that's your criteria then the two best films of last year were 'Shrek 2' and 'Spiderman 2', both of which made more money then The Passion.
That's all anyone sane needs to know.
If he did he would have never made this film in the first place.
That being said, I didn't care that much for The Passion.
I thought it was a boring gorefest. It could have been a great film if he concentrated more on Jesus' life (as he did a little bit with the use of flashbacks) and less on his final hours. The flashback scenes were the only truly entertaining parts of the film (yes, I expect movies to entertain). Two hours of Jesus getting beaten too a pulp was just too much --though the final scene was beautifully moving.
Braveheart was a much better film and deserved the Oscar recognition it received although I feel that The Passion is being snubbed more for politics and less because it is not a great film.
Incidentally, I lost all respects for the Academy Awards after Kevin Costner's PC-drenched Dances With Wolves beat out Scorsese's magisterial Goodfellas for top honors in 1991.
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.