The American Spectator

Print Email

Text Size

Political Hay

(Page 2 of 2)

There are only two serious "errors" in The Passion so far as I understand this argument. The first is that none of the Gospels has Satan moving through the crowd of Jews during Christ's passion, as Gibson does in the film.

This is a legitimate theological gripe, but a cinematic one? Besides, who's to say Satan wasn't there? Satan obviously took a considerable interest in the life, suffering, and death of Jesus.

The second criticism is that the ten graphic minutes Gibson dedicates to the flogging of Jesus is drenched in gruesome detail for which there is no scriptural substantiation. Matthew, Mark and John only say Christ was flogged; they mention no amount of time and the severity is never indicated. But it would be irrational to believe the flogging was mild considering the intensity of Jesus' suffering throughout the balance of his Passion, about which the Gospels leave little to the imagination.

Regardless, given the Academy has named Titanic Best Picture and nominated Oliver Stone for Best Director (JFK), we can reasonably assert that historical accuracy is not a prerequisite for Oscar glory.

The Oscars don't do foreign language films.

This myth actually applies to the Golden Globes, not the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. The Academy nominated La Vita é Bella (AKA: Life is Beautiful) for Best Picture in 1998. The film's leading man, Roberto Benigni, won the Best Actor that year.

This is not a legitimate reason to pass over The Passion.

Red Staters may have won on Election Day. But the cultural elites will always have Hollywood.

topics:
Catholicism, Hollywood