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.
gasp!
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.
Scorsese will get his this year. You can find quibbles with just about any awards show but the Oscars have been better then most at capturing the zeitgiest.
Drew68, The name of the movie was The Passion of the Christ. It was not about the Life of Christ.
That, and the fact that Hitchcock never won, shows what a joke the award is.
A re cut, longer version with 'more story' on a Special Edition DVD could be equal to Braveheart in quality, IMO.
I think you missed the point of THE PASSION.
The Cross etc was not 'staged' for entertainment.
The suffering was not experienced for diversion value.
The movie was not made to relieve boredom.
The movie was excellent at portraying more accurately than ever before, the most critical point and event in the history of all Creation.
It wasn't made for a laugh track.
Nothing new.
It has been having quite an effect on people for 2000 years now.
BUMP