We received a lot of very passionate mail in response to . Some of you agreed with Ventre, but overwhelmingly you seem to believe that there is a bias in Hollywood. Many of you believe that the Oscars just don’t matter anyway. In any case, here’s just a sample of some of the letters:
“The Passion of the Christ” is a once-in-a-lifetime unique film that has generated such a tidal wave of responses from all sides. It should be a film of which the Academy takes notice. After all, films are a reflection of our feelings. A film invokes such strong feelings deserve to be acknowledged.—Hayley Sias, Wichita, Kan.
Who cares what movies are nominated? The best picture Oscar selection process has clearly been overwhelmed by liberally biased, politically correct thought. The best picture selection has deteriorated to Hollywood liberals patting each other on the back over movies that advance certain social and political agendas.
If best picture selection matters at all, the article is simply a rationalization of an anti-religious bias.
Hollywood today is a far different place and has a far different mindset than it did 40 years ago when the films mentioned were honored. In the 1950s Hollywood produced beautiful movies like “The Robe” on a regular basis. Your mention of “Fahrenheit 9/11” is evidence of the mindset of Hollywood today. “Fahrenheit 9/11” has been demonstrated to contain multiple misrepresentations and was simply a propaganda tool. That such a movie would even be mentioned as a contender supports the position that liberal political correctness runs amuck in Hollywood.
Consider some of the rationalizations in the article. A statement that “The Last Temptation of Christ” shows there is no anti-religion bias in Hollywood is way off the mark. Would a movie depicting Mr. Gibson's father's views on the holocaust be viewed as a acceptable recognition of the holocaust? No. Yet a anti-religion movie is offered as evidence that Hollywood is open minded to religious themes. That is hardly persuasive and is simply rationalization.
Let us look at the rationalization that the movie is not worthy because it focused on the sufferings of Christ. The movie was based upon scripture. Scripture describes what Christ endured. Scripture tells us what role individuals and groups had in that suffering. Scripture should not be rewritten to out of concern for feelings being hurt. History tells us who is responsible for the attack on Pearl Harbor. Should a movie on the subject rewrite history so as not to offend the feelings of descendants of those responsible? No, and the recent production of “Pearl Harbor” bears this point out.
“The Passion of the Christ” is a work of art that conflicts with the political agenda of certain closed-minded liberals. If best picture mattered at all, it is evident that the selection process for best picture is probably no fairer than the selection process depicted in the Passion between Christ and Barabas. Social and political agendas dominate both selections. —Bill
I think the movie should be nominated. The movie took a very difficult subject and event and told it, holding back no punches. It also used subtitles, which after a while became very easy to deal with. Just as war movies such as “Saving Private Ryan” took the violence, which is very difficult to watch and accept actually happened, “The Passion” took people out of their comfort zones and told a part of the story that most have stayed away from. It was done very well and I feel is deserving of an award.—John Reyes, Anaheim
As an Evangelical Christian, I hope the film isn’t nominated for the simple reason that it wasn’t very good. Apart from the violence and anti-Semitic overtones (which Gibson appeared to go out of his way to include), the film just wasn't artistically interesting. Perhaps to compensate for the fact that they weren't speaking in English, nearly everyone in the film overacted to the point of becoming cartoons. And the “I'll be back”/Jesus as action hero ending was ridiculous.
Having said that, of course there's a religious bias in Hollywood. The cited exceptions prove the rule. Where were the nominations for “Shadowlands,” the wonderful (and critically praised) movie about the life of Christian author C.S. Lewis? There may be enough anti-religious sentiment to doom a nomination for “The Passion,” but at the end of the what really matter is that it is not even a good movie, much less one of the five best of 2004.—Brian K. Brookey, Glendale, Calif.
Of course the Academy voters are largely secular (i.e., opposed to traditional religion) and of course they're not going to ignore the film on that basis. The same basis was evident for many critics’ rejection of the film; it was especially laughable to compare many of these critics’ sudden squeamishness over blood with their lavish praise of Tarantino's bloody-and-vacuous “Kill Bill.”
The fact that the author suggests “The Last Temptation of Christ” as evidence the Academy isn't anti-religious reveals he's part of the problem. Not only was that film offensive in content, it was offensive in style. I dare anyone to watch five seconds of Harvey Keitel's overacting as Judas in the red fright wig and not wonder if he's playing a middle-aged Ronald McDonald gone to seed.
When you can find a film with pro-traditional-religion themes honored by the critics and Academy within the lifetime of most of your readers, maybe you can advance that argument. However, I think you'll be hard-pressed to find even any recent releases that meet this description (let alone ones that are well-thought-of within the Hollywood community). The only recent major release I can think of that might fit this is “VeggieTales: Jonah” from a couple of years back, and it's hardly adult fare.—Jeff, Charlotte, N.C.
This movie will not be nominated because it is not a very good movie. Cinema still boils down to telling a story, and there was no story here; just a description of a brutal death. Where was the climax? Where was the character's conflict, discovery and change? These are essential to stories, but Gibson neglected all of it.
If the devil with the pale skin was supposed to be the antagonist, where was the conflict? Aside from a few glimpses and the beginning scene, there was none. And climax? Was it when the tear of Jesus hit the ground and, in grand B-movie production style, the temple of the Jews split in half? That was a laughable scene and quite contrary to the truth. When Jesus died, the temple did not split asunder. That's ridiculous and it capped off a terrible movie with an outrageousness more deserved of a Coen Brother's sardonic yarn.
Finally, as far as the Jews, I didn't find a blatant sense of anti-Semitism, but I did find it interesting that Gibson chose, for his Jewish priests, to cast obviously Ashkenazi Jews. Ashkenazi Jews are of Eastern European and Northern European descent. Simply put, Ashkenazi Jews did not exist at the time of Jesus. In fact, white Jews didn't exist. Back then, Jews were by and large a Semitic people with dark skin and dark hair, not fair skin and characteristic Eastern European facial features i.e. the nose.
I don't think Gibson made overt references to anti-Semitism. But I do find it odd that he cast Maia Morgenstern as Jesus' mother. Again, he cast an Ashkenazi Jew for a part based on a true character of Semitic descent.
The movie was, essentially, a poorly made description of a man's death; a man who some believe was the son of God; a man who some believe was simply a Jewish rabbi. It doesn't deserve, nor will it receive any nomination because it is, plainly put, a bad movie.—Craig Rothstein, New York City
It won't be nominated, and I don't believe it should be. “The Passion” was, by far, the most intensely captivating and inspiring film that I've ever seen. I loved it, and I believe it was necessary to make. However, I was not “entertained” by the film, and I didn't want to be. I wanted to experience on the only level that I'm capable of, the suffering and pain that Christ endured for MY sins. I believe Mel Gibson was inspired by God to make this film. However, God is not in the “entertainment” business as is the Academy Awards. Besides, I believe Mel Gibson has already won the highest award that man can achieve — God's Blessing! —Philip Merrill, Washington, D.C.
It more than likely will not be nominated. It's simple to see why: Hollywood is not interested in anything that promotes a POSITIVE spiritual or religious outlook or perception. It will also show that they choose a film based upon THEIR OWN preference and not merit or quality of the film. There is probably just as much, if not more, blood in some of these horror films as there is in “The Passion.” If so, then why not be fair and choose for the quality of the acting, effects, make-up, etc.? But the main reason I believe that it will not get nominated is simply because the film speaks of a person, his life and what he has done for all in his last days yet they refuse to acknowledge Jesus in any way form or fashion. Since it is based upon the events in the past, and historians have yet to disprove that these events did not take place, what would be the reviews if it was perceived as documentary?—Tyrone Poole, Dothan, Ala.
Oh come on, “Kill Bill Vol. II,” “Shrek 2,” “The Bourne Supremacy” and “Fahrenheit 9/11” as Oscar frontrunners ahead of “The Passion”? You've got to be kidding me.Mark, New York, N.Y.
Mel Gibson's “The Passion of the Christ” won the hearts and minds of many and brought many back to their faith. He and his film don't need the accolades of a stuffy bunch of liberal agnostics. Who really cares about who wins the Oscars anymore? Their time has come and gone.—Cynthia Shipley, Canandaigua
Does it matter? I wonder why anyone feels the need to write these endless articles about whether or not this film will receive Oscars. It wasn’t made for that reason and I’m pretty sure that Mel Gibson could care less. But at least everyone else will earn some money writing about it like they did with all the controversy — so as long as you're all happy, that’s the main thing.
This film was made on minimum budget with maximum impact. It stirred the world into conversation and made many rethink their beliefs. That’s what matters. That’s why it was made. So what difference would a few more Golden Boys make!—Kathryn Robinson, Worcester
If “The Passion of The Christ” is not nominated, it will be painfully conspicuous by its absence. Hands down there is no other film that garnered more “word of mouse/mouth” than Gibson's controversial epic. The blogging universe alone witnessed more mentions and rants on “The Passion of The Christ” than “Fahrenheit 9/11” and all the other films from this year combined. Whether one is a secular fundamentalist or a religious zealot, it would be disingenuous to pretend that “The Passion” did not leave an indelible mark on our collective cinema-obsessed psyches. —Stewart Quealy, New York City
As you pointed out the people who will vote on the films that will be in the running for the Academy Awards are not impressed with “The Passion of the Christ” but not for the reasons you indicated. They have a bias because it was not written with view point of most Hollywood elite. To try to make the point that it is not practical to assign their views as relevant is like saying Barry Bonds didn't know there was steroids in the “cream” he was using.—Mike Roberts, McKinney, Texas
The film will be nominated. After the recent botched election, there has been a rush in the marketing world to get on the “values” bandwagon. The supposed moral mandate of the Republican victory will dictate what books are published, what movies capital is risked upon. The movie will be nominated by those out front, positioning themselves to be in the mainstream. —Name withheld
I think “The Passion” should and will be nominated. It is time that the world, especially this nation, turned to God for the answers to our problems. It is about time someone in the entertainment industry took a stand and made a film that is spiritually factual. I am tired of all the dirt and violence the entertainment industry has given us. Thank God Mr. Gibson has counted the cost and taken up his cross. By spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ; by making this heart touching movie.—Jana, Salem, W.V.
I hope it won’t be nominated for the reason it demeans the movie. Sure, a lot of people watch the Oscars but if Hollywood is giving itself awards after awards in weeks after weeks, who cares who wins or not. Like you wrote, we are only humans, we have short memories. Can’t even remember what I ate this morning.—Ron, Anaheim
Here’s a clue from middle America: The vast majority of people outside of Hollywood, New York and the media do not care what films win an Oscar.—Name withheld, Florida
I think it will and should be nominated. I think there is a similar comparison in the movie, “Schindler's List” whereby showing what the Nazis did to the Jews was condemning, but at the same time does not mean that all Germans are evil. The Jews did not understand what impact their decision would make in the story of the temptation.—John McClung, Houston
I would be surprised if “The Passion” was nominated and sadly disappointed if it was not. It is a great movie! My husband, who is Jewish, also enjoyed the movie very much. If anyone who is familiar with the four Gospels they would know and understand this movie was based on their version of the trial, crucifixion, death and resurrection the Christ. By not nominating the movie it would an attempt to deny the truth of what happened, to dismiss it as a whole. As for it being bloody, surely it was not more violent and bloody than movies such as “Goodfellas,” “The Godfather,” “Carrie,” “The Untouchables” and so many others. “The Passion” was and is a great movie. Mel Gibson deserves the Academy Award not only for best director, but for also having the guts to do in the first place! And just because I'm from the South this does not make me a Bible-toting conservative. I simply happen to be a teacher with a Master degree who loves the movies.—Dorothy Weaver, Mobile, Ala.