February 25, 2004

As the heat of The Passion rises to its apex (or have we already passed that?), leave it to the Academy Awards to linger in trivialities.

I was put in mind of the great line from Batman Returns, “I played `em like a harp from hell,” when I saw the John Horn story yesterday on an Academy complaint over an Friday ad in Variety supporting House of Sand & Fog’s Shohreh Aghdashloo. Miramax played Academy Chieftain Bruce Davis and then Davis played John Horn and the L.A. Times… all the while Miramax was allowed to look squeaky clean thanks to a “no comment.”

The alleged horror was an ad that simply noted the factual reality that many major media outlets have said that Renee Zellweger will win the Oscar… and that Shohreh Aghdashloo should win the Oscar. The anomaly that made the ad possible was the remarkable fact that so many journalists had taken this position, most surprisingly of all being a consensus between the New York Times critics.

Has there ever been an ad like this? Probably not. I don’t think there has ever been a consensus like this. For one thing, playing media parlor games like this has traditionally been beneath such publications as the New York Times. In fact, I believe I made fun of the NYT for running a “Will/Should” story. MCN will run only the projections of our writers. We believe that there is plenty of space in our various columns to allow us to express our personal preferences.

That said, is pointing this factual event out really going to be considered “negative” campaigning? How so? Isn’t this the most basic thing that should be pointed out? If everyone thought that Lord of the Rings was going to win Best Picture, but there was consensus amongst major outlets that it should be Lost In Translation… would that be wrong to say?

I don’t think there is any glimmer of dirty politics here. And in addition, I should point out that I had a conversation with a top DreamWorks exec on Friday regarding the ad and this very smart, very hip-to-the-room exec didn’t even know about the ad, much less offer a gleeful squeal about how they had put one over on poor little Miramax.

This year has been an exceptionally clean battle, in no small part because most of the battles have not been seen as battles at all but a series of faites accompli. The truth is, the Friday DreamWorks ad was too late to have much effect, though the thought behind it was smart. And the complaint and L.A. Times story are also too late to mean anything. The right thing to do would be to let is all drop. Or maybe the Academy should start investigating the Top Ten List counts from the various studios… or equal time provisions… or cap spending. Who knows? Maybe Ralph Nader can still run.

THE PASISON OF THE PASSION: The e-mail coming in from yesterday’s review of The Passion of The Christ was weighty. The vast majority of it was respectful, even when disagreeing. But there were exceptions. Here, a few samples:

LETTER ONE: “I just read your review of The Passion of the Christ. Up front I will tell you several things; I am a Roman Catholic; I have always found your take on events to be even-handed and finally; I could see your scathing review coming months ago. As editor of Movie City News, you should know that by constantly allowing sarcastic, ridiculing and disrespectful headlines to be written (by yourself or others) on your links about this film, you long ago disqualified yourself as an objective source of criticism for this movie. I am not some overly sensitive type; quite the opposite in fact, but I have to marvel at how you can accuse Gibson's film of being anti-semitic when I cannot go onto your Movie City News site without reading a derogatory headline about "Jesus" or Mel Gibson's Catholicism.

I am also very aware how you have, for the most part, only included sites/sources that had a negative spin on the film. Indeed, the only time you defended it recently was when critical comments were made about it by your arch-nemesis Roger Friedman. Obviously your contempt for Friedman outweighed your contempt for Mel. I would defend to my dying breath your right to say whatever you want on your site, but whereas I used to recommend your site to virtually all of the film lovers I met, now I find myself doing it less.

Perhaps what bothers me is that you "sell" yourself as someone who is more fair. Someone who doesn't have an axe to grind; yet with every snarky headline that mocked my faith I sided with Mel more and more that the majority in the mainstream press would just not give him a fair shake. Please don't say you were just mocking Mel or the situation; when Schindler's List was released over a decade ago critics wouldn't have dared had the "fun" with the subject matter or film as many have had with this. To those of us that share Mel's beliefs, this is no less a subject worthy of respect.

If you really think Gibson's film is anti-semitic than you should lead first by example by not mocking my faith. You have not and it has left an indelible bad taste in my mouth. I'm sure you are a nice guy. I'm sure you mean no harm and just can't understand what I'm bothered about. I'm sure you're thinking "It's just Jesus, for Christ's sake!" That's why Mel took the tactics he did. As a consumer, I must tell you I will visit your site less now because of it. I wish you the best.”

DAVID RESPONDS: Actually, I think you are being quite unfair about headlines. I have never taken Mel Gibson to task for being catholic and MCN has published many, many stories from people who support the film. The fact is, the majority of reviews until today have been slightly negative to scathing. When publishing the negative comments from two Chicago critics, also included are links to a 4-star review and a finger-waving commentary by Richard Roeper. Please feel free to send in some positive stories that MCN has omitted. I don’t think there are any in the mainstream media. Nor do I consider my own review, among so many, scathing. I do not know how I have “mocked your faith.” I am concerned when my feelings about a piece of art – even though I have long defended Gibson’s right to make this film and still feel that he is absolutely within his rights to have made this film as he saw fit – makes you feel that I am mocking you.

LETTER TWO: “Thank you for your clear-headed review of "The Passion." You cut through the hype and outrage (from all sides) with thoughtfulness about both the cinematic and philosophical/social issues. Can't say I want to see the movie now, but I'd already grown wary of it and weary of the hype. What stands out in your review as troubling for the movie speaks to what seems the trouble much of Christianity (and other religions) -- exclusivity. I grew up in the Lutheran church, a rather relaxed group oChristiansns, but I haven't been to church for years.

In the last couple years, I've found myself actually asking why and finding that the answer lies in that notion of exclusivity. The first "sign" came when I paid a visit to ground zero on a Sunday evening in 2002. While I and others looked on in awed, humbled silence, a man took a position across the street and preceded to tell us in a booming voice that we better accept Christ as our savior or we'd end up like the thousands of unsaved souls who died on that spot. Uh-huh.

The second sign came when I finally watched "The Last Temptation of Christ" and found myself emotionally, physically, spiritually, and intellectually moved. Here, in the end after overcoming the temptation domestic happiness, the Christ I remembered from church scarified himself for humanity. It made sense as a story. And what a story if you just look at it as that, a story. A god has mercy for his fallen creation and sends his son (the flesh embodiment of himself) and sacrifices him for humanity, for everyone. Just from the sense of story, how could you then put a caveat in -- "well you get the gift if you do this"? It weakens the hero. It makes him (or his father, let's say) petty. It makes the act meaningless. Yet, the notion of Christianity, especially some strains of it, seems to rest on this very idea -- you must believe in this event and this sacrifice for it to mean anything. Oh, and you shouldn't be a whole lot of other things. Otherwise, you're going to hell. Sorry. Back to your review -- what strikes me is the idea that Jewish characters are, as you say, virtually unsympathetic. It seems to me that that says to the audience, "If you don't believe, this story isn't for you." Does that make sense from a storytelling point of view? More to the point, doesn't that rob the movie of its potential for art by suggesting that a large portion of the potential audience can't empathize with it even if they choose not to believe in it as literal truth? Doesn't that exclude them from discovering the beauty in the story as story and the beauty of the philosophy of Jesus and the beauty of taking your cue from a heroic figure like Jesus by giving more of yourself because it's the right thing to do and not because of some reward/punishment? It certainly tells me maybe I should stick with Marty's version.”

LETETR THREE: “I thought that the idea of filming The Passion Of The Christ in street Latin and Aramaic was to bring a degree of authenticity and feel for the times. Instead what we get is ROCKY in the Holy Land. No matter how many times they whip him or how much blood drips from his body he gets back up to carry that cross. It is Hollywood gone mad.

As for the flashbacks, in true Hollywood style, his hair looked as if he had just come from the Salon, no matter how dry and dusty the location. And instead of adding authenticity, the language made every sentence sound like a memorized speech. There was no genuine emotion with the words. This spread to the extras. Because they had no idea what was being spoken, they reacted like robots. I can hear the director telling them how to react to every sentence.

The intensity and constant focus on the blood, the whippings and the degradation was so excessive that it seemed to me to be unnaturally fetishist. It seems that John Debney's music was an attempt to save the film, but the bombastic nature just highlighted the failings of the film. Yes, I will agree that some of Caleb Deschanel's cinematography is terrific, but that is the main redeeming feature of the film. As a film, it fails because there is no connection to any of the character and it becomes rather boring and incredibly, for such an emotional subject, uninvolving.

LETTER FOUR: “I think your review of Gibson's "The Passion" expects far more perspective than the film was trying to achieve. This isn't a film that tries to see a balance. This is not a film that relies on subtlety or nuance or grays. This film should be seen in context: a passion play presented with a VERY Catholic POV.

To expect a balance in the Jewish perspective is an unfair criteria, but I can see why you would see such a disparity. But believers and unbelievers alike in this film are Jews. What is a "regular" Jew? The very crowds that thronged Jesus when he provided bread and fish were often the same clamoring for his death. This is mob mentality, but they are not alone. Why are Mary and the Apostles not considered a fair balance?

Why expect a film to fit your particular needs? Isn't part of the process to understand the filmmaker's intent? No one seems to be upset when a villain in a "Die Hard" or "Lethal Weapon" movie has an accent and is Austrian, or Swiss, or from South Africa. There is no expectation to see a "regular" accent-toting character to offset him or her, to show that, "Hey, (insert country here) has good people too!"

The Jews in this film are a vehicle. The point is the suffering. That may not be everyone's approach to Jesus (I am more motivated by his Atonement and Resurrection myself, rather than his death), but that is Gibson's approach. I'd like to think we're all smart enough to tell the difference.”

DAVID RESPONDS: I don’t expect the film to be made to my specs or preferences. And one thing you might remember about Die Hard is that the “bad guys” were from a variety of countries. If the hostages in Die Hard were all Japanese and the threat was that the bad guys – American all – were going to nuke the building on the anniversary of Hiroshima, wouldn’t the historical politics of that notion be worthy of note?

THE FINAL LETTER: “Your review of Gibson's Passion (as does almost everything I encounter about evangelical Christians) made me think of this quote from Reinhold Neibuhr:

‘Frantic orthodoxy is never rooted in faith but in doubt. It is when we are not sure that we are doubly sure.’ ”

E ME: Express yourself lest ye be expressed upon.