Oscar Nominations (Passion of the christ)

As i was looking at the Academy Award Nominations for this year, i noticed that "The Passion of The Christ" is Nominated for only three categories, "Make-up" "music score" and "cinematography", In my oppinion the movie should also get "best director" and "editing" nominations. The cinematography Nomination really MUST go to POTC....as well as musical scoring, i found it the most moving score of the year.

Yeah well... I kinda figured they wouldn't.

This type of stuff should be expected.

Heh, wasn't until now I realized Pirates and Passion had the same acronym.

The reason I thought it would not be nominated was just because this world is so attached on things like Desperate Housewives, Queer Eye for a Straight Guy, The Simple Life etc. There is no way in the world that a movie based on the true story of Jesus Christ would make it that far.

There's no reason a movie SHOULD (or SHOULDN'T) be nominated because it's about Jesus. I realize many people responded strongly to the movie because it reflected their faith. That's great. That doesn't make it a great movie, or one that's worthy of awards. It's a little frustrating sometimes to hear people acting like this is great filmmaking. OK, I respect that some people feel that way. But even restricting our choices to nothing but other films about Jesus, I don't see how this movie stacks up. You want a great movie about Jesus? Try Pasolini's "The Gospel According to St. Matthew," a true masterpiece now available on DVD.

Besides, the Academy has rarely been interested in taking chances or honoring divisive films. Oscars only go to films that a large group of people can agree on and, by definition, divisive or controversial films tend not to breed consensus. The Academy played it safe, like they always have and always will.

The movie got big box office, but it was a decidedly mediocre affair all around. There have certainly been many WORSE movies both nominated for and winning Best Picture, but it's hardly an injustice that this bit of silliness didn't get recognized.

I can understand those who are enthusiastic about the cinematography - Deschanel always delivers the goods. But score? Instantly forgettable.

Its true that the academy plays it safe, with all that jew big-heads - studio executives..and with the film accused for antisemitism before im predicting that the only thing to go to the POTC will be the make-up award. It will sound like joke, almost ironic, if not cinematography or score, better nothing! And movies like "RAY"...will get everything...combine the nominations and the fact that ray charles died recently, and you have an oscar winner. And an actor who got his big brake "jammie foxx" Winning an Oscar for THAT performance!!! I Heard "The aviator" sux a bit too? i never saw that movie, what do you think?

I realize this has nothing to do with the Passion of the Christ, but on your announcement article there's a somewhat significant (depending on how you want to look at it) error. You mention that Finding Neverland had only 5 nominations, when in fact it's 7: Best Picture, Best Actor, Best Adapted Screenplay, Achievement in Art Direction, Achievement in Costume Design, Best Film Editing and Best Original Score.


You may also want to mention Million Dollar Baby was also nominated 7 times...

Your probably right. But I just wish that for once a film like this would of been recognize for what it stands for and not the quality of filming it had.

Roque,

Why should an organization devoted to the arts nominate a movie for its subject matter? There are civics, family, and social awareness groups as well as history societies that give awards based on subject matter with zero regard to a movie's artistic achievements.

Let me put it this way--should the movies based on the "Left Behind" series win Best Picture Oscars just because they're Christian movies?

Eddie

Left Behind? oh no, good subject, horrible movie. I see where you are getting at. I didn't want POTC to be nominated because it was a Christian based film. I just wanted it to be recognized for the effort that Mel Gibson put into this film as far as risks, critics, and much more, thats all.

I guess it just would be nice to see a Christian film succeed the same way Secular movies do. Of coruse, Poster5, you know that I am strong believer in my faith and am always basing my comments on what I, notice I said "I", believe to know what is true. I didn't mean anything by posting why POTC should be nominated. :D

Mel certainly made a movie he believed in personally, but I don't think he risked much. He dumped $20-$30 million of his own money into it. If it was a flop, the risk was he'd have to somehow suffer and struggle by in life with his other $100 million and change.

Many, many filmmakers pour their blood, sweat and tears into deeply personal projects, many taking far greater financial risks than Gibson did. I applaud Gibson for following his heart, but there are hundreds of other filmmakers not as famous as him who do the same thing all the time.

I would argue that's just what happened. What is wasn't was a particularly good film (and I know some reasonable people argue otherwise.) That's one reason it didn't get nominated or get very good reviews, in general. What it was was a film that (for reasons I admit escape me) struck a very powerful chord with many people. That's why it absolutely blew out every box office estimate that existed and found its way into the lives of many church goers. Heck, it was even sold in a "Fifty copy church pack." And it won a People's Choice Award which is admittedly half a step up from winning a free copy of Alien vs. Predator, but I guess it's something. :)

Just because its a christian film doesnt meant you have to fight it! Filmaking has no religion and no political aspects, Its a story, well told. Mr.Spielberg did a movie about the horrible holocust, a moving film with great acting and screenplay, but not everyone in the wolrd is a jew, A!!! Correction...big-studio-heads are..... so..instead of fighting the film, embrace it! Its unjust, the passion of the christ, like it or not, was the perfect marriage between feelings and screen acting, fx used to serve the movie instead the other way around...musical scoring cannot stand on its own...without the film is just ambient...but its an excellent score with the film! I Must be honest...this was one of the artistic films that hollywood DOES NOT Make very often. A One man's strugle to achieve something that in his field was named "controversial" or "unsutable" . We had a conversation about open water and how the filmakers told themselve "what ever it takes...we'll just do it!" TPOC is a testimonial for that... Photography, acting...great budgets spilled into a wondermaker Crew! and at last, a movie with cruel violence that actually has a purpose...and a movie where the director doesnt claim "artistic" expressionism like "violent scenes represents the chaos of our society". A Slap to pop-corn, and a more bigger slap to the academy. now that i think about it, an academy award will actually stain the production...better nothing!

S_Coaster,

No one is fighting "The Passion of the Christ" because it's a Christian movie. Chris praised "The Gospel According to St. Matthew", a movie that the Catholic Church itself recommends Catholics to watch. Also, please bear in mind that there have been many religious movies that have won Oscars and other movie awards, including "Ben-Hur", which is also known fully as "Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ".

Eddie

Well.. I was disappointed that POTC and Fahrenheit 9/11 both didn't get nominated. That would've be awesome to watch the two square off for best pic. kind of like a red states vs. blue states thing.. haha. I'd bet the ratings for the show would've be through the roof if those two had be contending. Right now as is, the movies nominated for best pic, etc. aren't even very popular. It definately hurt ratings.

I think the show would've been so dramatic if those two been nominated. And, if F 911 won, dude, all those conservatives and religious people would be fuming about how liberal Hollywood is. Maybe hollywood was afraid of the potential controvery over that. And, NO, i dont' think hollywood is liberal... look at Reagan, and Arnold.. both republicans. Conservatives and religious people like Rogue complain about Desperate Housewives, Simple Life, etc.. What they don't understand is that those shows are on the air, because they make money for the channels. Hollywood is a business, and they only sell what will make them money. If violence and sex weren't popular, then "liberal" studios would sell something else. Look at FOX, it has a conservative news channel, but has a tv channel that sells sex, and violence. The same studio that produces "The O' REilly Factor", produces "The Simple Life", "Trading Spouses", "Point Pleasant", "The OC", "24".

Anyways, that was way off the main point.. Does anyone agree with me on any of this?

S_Coaster,

So, are you trying to say that "The Passion of the Christ" ISN'T a religion/religious movie?

Eddie

viter, I think you've got a good point. When people say Hollywood is "liberal", they're really referring to the fact that some outspoken actors are liberal. Sometimes, it's also code for anti-semitism but that's another story.

Are the studios and studio heads liberal? Ha! Whether they're registered dem or repub, they're as ultra-orthodox as it gets when they run their business. And Hollywood movies themselves? Has there been any greater factory for the production of conservative, conformist ideology than Hollywood over the years?

Csjlong,

I have to agree with everything you have said. I also have no great love for Mel because as a historian I can say that Mel is a big problem.

Just for the record. We have corrected the article with right amount of nominations to Finding Neverland and now also mentions Million Dollar Baby.

Thanks for letting us know.

The two movies are completely different, though. Kill Bill (not a personal favorite) was intended to be an over-the-top martial arts/swordplay fantasy. Passion was, apparently, meant to be a realistic portrayal of the last 12 hours of Jesus' life. I found the violence in each equally outlandish - in the case of Kill Bill it was meant to be. In the case of Passion, I can only attribute it to inept filmmaking. Of course, I also think Braveheart is laughably awful.

Take a deliriously over-the-top horror flick like _Dead Alive._ The violence is utterly grotequse... and utterly hilarious. It becomes a cartoon orgy of gushing fluids and ripped flesh. So does Passion - but I don't think it was meant to seem that ridiculous.

Personally, I saw nothing human or realistic about Passion. I thought its depiction was so absurd and overwrought, it played more like an S&M cartoon. Mel missed both Jesus the God and Jesus the Man and instead gave us Jesus as Wile E. Coyote. Very quickly, the violence ceased to be shocking and merely became ludicrous, and I found it very difficult to keep myself from laughing during the movie. Mel is, quite simply, a rotten director.

"The Gospel According to St. Matthew" also presents an angry, determined reformer, but does so with considerably greater skill.

It's depressing that people would rally around such a mediocre and unchallenging movie as Passion in this manner. There were literally hundreds of better, braver movies made just in 2004.

Im not saying that other movies of the kind are worse,or better, im just sepperating them as movies from different Leagues. As for the violence, yes, in such dramatic events one can utilize a prism of Exaggeration to give emphasis on certain aspects of the story itself. The same people that "loughed" at the violence of this movie were the same people who praised and regognized violence as an essential ingredient of the perfection that some movies like "Kill bill Vol.1" , a complete joke.

Yes, byt POTC went off from that "romantized" image of a jesus SO wooden and wise...which made him look even less human. In The passions u see the human side of the whole story, and added dimension which was absent by other films, thus appealing more realistic to the audience. A Depiction so realistic just creates its own category, you cant compare it to other relegious films, the fact that people see it as a relegious film is a proove that these movies are kept aside from normal movies. Its just story, you can view it even if you are not a christian. In the U.S. A few years back the goverment actually legalized and regognized "the Jedi Dogma" as a religion, i suppose that makes the star wars series relegious movies. The true fact is that this movie was fought So hard by lots of people, even christians. But since the controversy actually worked as a free publicity thing...they got a box office hit. So how can we fight it now? Give it nothing. Plus in all other movies you mentioned above no movie even dared to potray the jewish court so vividly.

Chris,

What you posted about calling Hollywood "liberal" being code for anti-Semitism is VERY true. Just look at this post, with S_Coaster mentioning "Jewish" studio heads at least twice, apparently forgetting that there are more than 5,000 voting members of the AMPAS who are mostly NOT Jewish.

Eddie

Posters... 75% meaning people who can actually put a stop sing to movies, big-heads as i like to call them...Not public. By saying that you potray me as an antisemitist! Im Not!

2nd) Where in hell did i wrote that hollywood is liberal?
3rd) Relegious Yes, Ordinary, No! Dont put this film at the same "league" with "jesus from nazareth" or other films you mentioned before, the movie's story is the same, but they are different from heaven to earth.

4th) "it's dangerous to purport that mainly Jews didn't like the movie" Explain please cause i,personally take it as a threat. I Didnt purport that...cnn, bloomberg...bbc did that by saying "the jewish community finds the film tautning...." or "The jewish people tried to convince other moviegoers to avoid the screenings pleading racism..." etc etc.

S_Coaster,

It's phrases like "jew big-heads" that make some readers, or at least me, a little uncomfortable with your postings. I do not know you well enough to judge how you mean this, and I would not accuse anyone of anti-semitism without knowing much more. It is possible, for example, that English is not your first language, so you don't know how provocative such a phrase can be. I also don't understand why the "Jewish issue" came up in this discussion at all, which was a discussion about the relative artistic merits of Passion of the Christ. It might benefit you to choose a more careful manner in which to express your thoughts in order to avoid accidentally conveying impressions you did not intend. On the internet, our words exist with little or no context and misinterpretation is a real risk.

Jew or Gentile, what's that got to do with whether or not Passion is a good movie?

Now if we were specifically discussing whether or not Passion was an anti-Semitic film, that might be a different story, but that hasn't been brought up.

A Statement: THE POSTS ABOVE (AT LEAST MINE) ARE NOT AGAINST JEWISH PEOPLE, AND THEY CERTAINLY DONT INCLUDE ANY HINTS OF HATRED OR DISCOMFORT AGAINST JEWISH READERS. THE FRASE "JEWISH" IN GENERAL IS REFERING NOT TO THE WHOLE COMMUNITY OF THOSE PEOPLE, BUT TO THE PEOPLE I BELIEVE THAT TRIED TO STOP THE MOVIE MENTIONED ABOVE DURING ITS RELEASE DATES WORLDWIDE,BASED ON FACTS THAT WHERE ANNOUNCED DURING THE PERIOD OF THE RELEASE OF THE MOVIE FROM MEDIA SUCH AS TV, RADIO, INTERNET.
IF YOU BELIEVE THAT THE MY POSTS ABOVE INSULTS YOU AS A MEMBER OF THE JEWISH COMMUNITY FEEL FREE TO DISCUSS IT WITH ME.
(BIG HEADS= PEOPLE WITH INFLUENCIAL POWER AT STUDIOS/DISTRIBUTION COMPANIES, NOTHING MORE)

oh, and one more thing, freedom of expression, can be found in many constitutions and dictionaries worldwide.

Censorship: Social practices aiming to bar the creation or dissemination (e.g., the publication or public display) of disapproved forms of artistic expression.

Thank you for your time.

S_Coaster,

NO ONE tried to stop the movie from being made or from being shown in American theatres.

Also, the term censorship applies only to governments. Movie theatres are free to choose which movies they show or don't show. That decision is based on what movies will help them attract customers. It would've been suicide to refuse to show "The Passion of the Christ" because, well, people wanted to see it, and what self-respecting theatre boss would turn down the chance to stay in business?

Eddie

Well, technically censorship can be aplied to any small community or organization if a reigning number of it believes that the subject in discussion is harmfull for the organization's image or beliefs. Anywayz....

I totally understand what you are saying Viter. And I agree with ya. If 9/11 would of one over POTC then... yeah... I guess I would've been upset. I guess I am just tired of whats on TV these days. But look at me I have a DVR setup at home with over 300 channels. heh!

S_Coaster,

1) First you claim one thing, and then you claim the exact opposite (i.e. Hollywood is both "liberal" and not "liberal" according to you).

2) You want people to be able to see "The Passion of the Christ" as something other than a religion/religious movie, but then you argue that it IS a religion/religious movie.

3) You make a blanket statement about how 75% of the people who didn't like "The Passion of the Christ" were Jewish. Considering that Jews make up a very small percentage of the world's population and considering that MANY people didn't like the movie for a variety of reasons, it's dangerous to purport that mainly Jews didn't like the movie.

Eddie

Posters....,buddy, i have nothing against Jews ( i actually know people who are jews, and they are great guys!) But like 75% of the people that accused this movie, were jews.
the other 25% was either too scared to bet on it or effected by the other 75%. AND yes Passion of the christ WAS a RELEGION movie, after some people fought it, it became a punch to the stomach for the entire Hollywood system, and the fact that it took so much money in, made them more angry than ever. About the history thing...mel didn actually said that is the EXACT Depiction of the facts, he used some of his "artistic liscense" to add some elements, but he didnt extract or add anything to the linear story.
Hollywood is not liberal....its just a Money making buisiness, that's why i didnt expect more nominations. Im just glad that Mel did his thing, created something on his own, and shook-up that "dream factory" Hollywood. Im sure i wont hear any hollywood historian complain when a movie will be made for iraq showing NO enemy torture.

Are we talking about the movie where Mel Gibson was crucified?:)
--Ranjan

While the Academy frequently allows box office success to be a factor..
-csjlong

Frequently? Oh please, the majority of the nominees this year have all earned under 100 mil. Ray, Million Dollar Baby, The Aviator, Sideways, Hotel Rwanda, Finding Neverland...you get the idea. Look at some of the winners of previous years...A Beautiful Mind, American Beauty, Chiacago...and so forth. If box office success were a factor, we should be seeing inept trash like "The Grudge" being nominated. Of course, there are the exceptions like LOTR ROTK, Titanic, etc, but to say that this happens frequently is a gross EXAGGERATION!

You're right, poster! look at Titanic, the biggest hit of all time, swept up best pic.

This year's nominations have been mostly critical successes, not financial so far.
Another thing that hurt F911 and POTC is probably they were released so earily in the year that they lost a lot of heat and buzz.

Um, "A Beautiful Mind", "American Beauty", and "Chicago" ALL grossed more than $100 million. In fact, "A Beautiful Mind" and "Chicago" both grossed more than $150 million!

Chris isn't talking about super-blockbusters, but amongst Academy voters, there is the perception that the movie that made the most money might be the best movie because a) if so many people saw/liked it, then it must be good and b) a vote for a money-making movie is a vote for the industry.

Um, no.

Technically, censorship is a governing body suppressing the expression of ideas. Just because a lot of people don't want to see/hear something doesn't automatically mean that there is censorship. Something actually has to be banned by someone with civic authority.

i really really regret that the Academy wimped out this year by not nominating these movies. F 911 and POTC made a huge impact on many people, much more so than the ones nominated for best pic. Both of them controversial, esp. the former. By wimping out on this, I feel they took away lots of the fun from this years show. And, I also think the movies nominated won't be memorable in years to come, because they made such a small dent in the public's radar. In fact, all five of the best pic nominees only made slight less than 200 mil this far.

And, I feel sorry for Mel Gibson, and Michael Moore. Gibson didn't feel like he needed to compaign, cuz i guess he thought he'd get nominated for lots of awards. and, he didn't get any of the major nominations. And, Moore who lost the election, made the gamble to show it on TV a day before the election, and stuck it with his chances for best pic, and lost that too.
Bummer! But either way, both pics were huge hits, and Moore and Gibson still made tons of money from their respective movies, particularly Gibson. So, what do they have to care about...

While the Academy frequently allows box office success to be a factor, I certainly don't think they should. Who cares how many people went to see a movie? It has nothing to do with how good it is. I hope we're not going to get a groundswell of support for "Meet the Fockers" for Best Picture. :)