‘Passion’s’ place not in academy picture

After making a huge box-office splash, Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of

The Christ” was left out of contention for an Academy Award for best

picture this year. Some argue that this was a form of religious

prejudice. Others say it was a flawed film and that voters steered

clear from it because it was controversial. Do you think the film

deserved a nod from the academy, or do you think it was put in its

rightful place -- not among the best films? Why do you think it

didn’t get a nomination?

The academy members should give their award to whomever they wish.

The main message communicated by their failure to nominate “The

Passion of The Christ” for best picture is one that has been obvious

for years: Hollywood follows and propagates a system of values that

fundamentally differs from that of the greater American public. So

academy members voted “no” with their ballots, and the American

public voted “yes” at the box office.

Why wasn’t the film nominated? It’s hard to say. Some say the

reason is anti-Christian bias. This may be true. Hollywood regularly

dishonors God’s name in movies and television shows. Positive

portrayals of Christians are rare exceptions. Christian media

professionals often work in climates of intolerance for their faith

in Christ.

A select few in the academy got the chance to vote on the movie.

But every one of us is invited to vote in our hearts for the man who

said: “Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give

you rest. Take My yoke upon you, and learn from Me, for I am gentle

and humble in heart; and you shall find rest for your souls.”

(Matthew 11:28-29).

Millions of us who would have chosen Gibson’s film for best

picture agree on two things: Seeing “The Passion of The Christ” moved

our hearts, and placing our faith in the person of Jesus Christ saved

our souls.

PASTOR JON BARTA

Valley Baptist Church

Burbank

In my opinion, the film “The Passion of the Christ” was put in its

rightful place by not receiving a nod from the academy. It was

“good,” as biblical flicks go, if you don’t mind seeing the brutal

flaying of Jesus for half the film. But I don’t think it compares

with the films that have been nominated, including the three I have

seen: “Sideways,” “Million Dollar Baby” and “The Aviator.”

One reason it may not have been nominated is not because Hollywood

is “anti-religious,” but because the film is so one-sided in its

theological stance. It isn’t a tale of the Christ; it’s Mel Gibson’s

one-sided slant on the meaning of Jesus. At the very beginning of the

film a passage from Isaiah 53 is quoted: “He was wounded for our

transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities.” And for

practically the rest of the film the viewer is “treated” to the most

brutal pounding of an individual that seems to go on and on for

hours. The film is a bloodbath and seems to emphasize the sufferings

of Jesus more than any other aspect of what Christians call the

Incarnation. “Religious” movies shouldn’t be banned from Oscar

contention; “Ben-Hur” wasn’t. But Mel Gibson’s film is so one-sided

in its glorification of the sufferings of Jesus that it got what it

deserved: mentioned as an also-ran. That’s what I think.

PASTOR SKIP LINDEMAN

Congregational Church

of the Lighted Window,

United Church of Christ

La Canada Flintridge

The advertising for “The Passion of the Christ” indicated a great

deal of violence, and I don’t enjoy that. Plus, I already knew the

story, so I haven’t seen the film. I can’t comment on its merits as

film art.

I did see “Sideways,” “Million Dollar Baby,” “The Aviator” and

“Ray,” and all are wonderful films, worthy of Oscar consideration.

Every year those who don’t get the nominations think they deserve

complain and offer various rationales for why they were overlooked.

This is no different. I don’t think religion plays any part in these

awards. The film industry is a business, and nominations and awards

pay off at the box office, so politics becomes part of the mix.

However, I think the main reason the above-mentioned films and

“Finding Neverland” got best-picture nominations is because the

majority of the academy members deemed them the best work they’ve

seen this year.

Why would religious people feel bad about being snubbed by the

elite of an industry they consider godless and sinful anyway?

SHARON WEISMAN

Atheist

Glendale

It is my personal opinion that “The Passion” film rocked the

Christian community as well as the non-Christian community. Will it

long be remembered? Probably. Did it change some people in some

significant way? Probably. Will it be publicly recognized as a great

film at the gala Academy Awards? Probably not.

Feeling challenged and uncomfortable at times is not uncommon for

most people. Also, controversy frightens many people, and as we all

recognize from events occurring around the world, religious

controversy is a hot button for conflict that many would rather

avoid.

THE REV. ALICE

PARSONS ZULLI

Director of Bereavement

Support and Services,

Glendale Adventist

Medical Center

I do feel that Hollywood rewards talent. If Hollywood is biased,

it is biased against inferior talent. The academy apparently saw a

better representation of its ideals in other films.

“The Passion” did not get a nomination for best film because the

academy (many members of which are God-fearing, faithful, believing

people) felt it did not qualify. Being “religious” or “Christian”

should never be a qualification or criteria for award any more than

box-office sales. The majority is not always right.

PASTOR JOHN C. JENKINS

First Southern Baptist Church

Glendale