![[Gorthak mugshot]](/tally-ho/resources/net.spatula.tally_ho.service.beans.UserBean//avatar/spatula.jpg)
The Passion of the Christ was nominated for its musical score, cinematography and makeup. Just not Best Picture. Many religious activists just aren't satisfied and believe that it should have been nominated for Best Picture too.
Using the reasoning "because no nomination for Best Picture, therefore general conspiracy," should we conclude that because Fahrenheit 9/11 received no nominations that there's a huge anti-liberal conspiracy in Hollywood? Or was that film simply not up to the same standard as the other films that were nominated for Best Picture? Was The Passion of the Christ really on the same level with The Aviator, Finding Neverland, Million Dollar Baby, Ray and Sideways?
The critics certainly don't seem to think so. Brian Webster of the Apollo Guide said, "For moviegoers who don't share Mel Gibson's religious agenda, it's nothing but an unpleasant experience." David Ansen of Newsweek said, "Instead of being moved by Christ's suffering, or awed by his sacrifice, I felt abused by a filmmaker intent on punishing an audience, for who knows what sins." Stephanie Zacharek of Salon.com called it "A very dour, pedestrian picture." And Kenneth Turan of the LA Times hit the nail on the head, saying the Passion is "so narrowly focused as to be inaccessible for all but the devout."
In other words, relative to other Hollywood pictures last year, The Passion of the Christ, on its own merits, falls far short of the general appeal and achievement required for a Best Picture nomination. Its a niche movie meant for a niche audience: closeted S&M aficionado religious zealots. And that's fine! It's great that a picture was made to cater to this often-overlooked market. I'm glad someone did. But on its own merits and relative to other Hollywood pictures last year, it didn't stand a chance of receiving a Best Picture nod.
One can only conclude that what's really offending Jennifer Giroux and others of her ilk is that the film did not receive a Best Picture nomination simply because The Passion has "Christian" content. It's as if she believes that the film should automatically be nominated for Best Picture just because she happens to like it. And if it doesn't get a nomination, that can only mean that there's a conspiracy against her faith.
This is a bizarre conclusion unsupported by facts, however. Every time a niche film isn't nominated for Best Picture, are we to assume a great Hollywood conspiracy? Well here's a newsflash, Jennifer: I like a lot of movies that never get Oscar nominations. Am I persecuted too? Is there a Hollywood conspiracy against sex because Kinsey wasn't nominated for Best Picture? Is there a Hollywood conspiracy against witches because Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban wasn't nominated for Best Picture? (If every religion or philosophy represented in every film that didn't get nominated for Best Picture had a Hollywood Conspiracy against it, there'd be more conspiracies than academy members!) Or were these movies simply not among the best five movies of the year?
And what does Occam's Razor say? Which is more likely: The Passion was not a top-5 film in 2004, or there's a massive conspiracy in Hollywood to discriminate against films that have Christian content?
The Passion wasn't nominated for Best Picture simply because it wasn't one of the best pictures. The movie doesn't deserve a nomination simply because it has Christian content. There's no anti-Christian conspiracy.
---Nick
