Comments on: Oscars Snub Fahrenheit 9/11 and Passion of the Christ

By: Lt.

Lt. — Tue, 25 Jan 2005 19:46:42 +0000

I see,
thanks

By: Kappiy

Kappiy — Tue, 25 Jan 2005 19:39:24 +0000

LT-

I would normally associate propaganda with espousing a particular doctrine. After seeing Gibson's film, I am not sure what the political message is.

I would say that "Passion" even failed as a propaganda film if you think of the latin origin of the word (propagating the faith) since there was no discussion of theology. It was basically a "period-piece horror film."

By: McGehee

McGehee — Tue, 25 Jan 2005 19:30:15 +0000

And- whatever happened to the film about Reagan?

They don't give Oscars to TV-movies.

By: Lt.

Lt. — Tue, 25 Jan 2005 19:15:08 +0000

I am surprised (Kappiy) that you did not mention "passion"
as your" basic poor propaganda film". Was not teh political intent the motive behind both films? And- whatever happened to the film about Reagan?

By: Kappiy

Kappiy — Tue, 25 Jan 2005 19:03:13 +0000

I am not surprised about the lack of nominations of "Farenheit 9/11" or "Passion." Farenheit was basically a poor propaganda film and probably Moore's worst work. "Passion" was a simplistic bloodfest along the lines of B-grade horror movies. He did very little to the story--nothing to compare with Pasolini's treatment in "Il Vangelo secondo Matteo" (1964). I was surprised that Jehane Noujaim's "Control Room" didn't get a best documentary nomination.

By: McGehee

McGehee — Tue, 25 Jan 2005 17:52:05 +0000

Of course, Hughes and Hollywood didn't get along very well when he was alive...

By: bryan

bryan — Tue, 25 Jan 2005 17:14:55 +0000

Not surprising. Think about the content: a president hollywood hates, a messiah figure half of hollywood doesn't believe in, versus ... A larger-than-life HOllywood type swashbuckling hero from the heyday of film.

The question should be why WOULDN'T they go for the Aviator over either Passion or Fahrenheit?