I knew better, but I really hoped that once Easter had passed and The Passion … had resurrected itself (I’m sure plenty of people are using that metaphor) to reclaim the top box office spot in its continuing campaign to bring peace and love to the world (right?), it would start to go away. Diminishing returns and all that. Mel out of the news. Summer blockbusters on their way. You know … all that.
But today The Hollywood Reporter asks the question “Will ‘The Passion of the Christ’ play in primetime?” TV networks regularly go through bidding wars to claim the rights to broadcast major blockbusters, but The Passion … is taking this activity a few steps further. First, the distributor Newmarket Films does not have any prearranged output agreements with any of the pay cable services which usually get the first window to broadcast. That means HBO, Showtime and Starz Encore will be competing against each other for the rights to this one film.
More importantly, though, Mel’s company Icon Productions is demanding that whoever broadcasts the film “must run (it) in its entirety and that even some of the more graphic scenes of beatings cannot be edited down.” In fact, I read somewhere else that Icon really wants a broadcast network to air the 2-hour gorefest (my word, not theirs) in its entirety with no commercial interruptions. (To be fair, NBC got a single sponsor for a Schindler’s List broadcast in the past couple years and aired the film straight through, and I believe at least mostly unedited.)
I have a problem with another element of this potential broadcast, however. Nowhere in the Hollywood Reporter story (via Yahoo! and Reuters) does it mention any network concerns over broadcast standards, the extreme graphic violence and any reason why such a broadcast over the public airwaves on a major network would not cause an FCC violation. In fact, the only comment made in this story regarding concern over the content of the film is solely related to its commercial prospects: “That makes it a tough sell for the broadcast networks, which would undoubtedly have a hard time lining up advertisers for the controversial film even if edits were made.”
As I mentioned in my pseudo-review of the film, I think some of the levels of violence and gore in the movie have been hyped a bit, but that doesn’t negate that it exists. One does see a hook rip out a chunk of flesh from Jesus’ back. One does see a pretty damn large nail hammered through his hand, creating a small geyser of blood that would make any Fangoria reader proud. One does see a Roman soldier stab Jesus on the cross in the side with a spear producing a waterfall of blood which pours out of the wound. And those are just the first three things that pop to mind.
I’m sure the thinking is that none of this is — to use the FCC’s favorite word — “indecent” because it’s all about Jesus. But Mr. Valenti and his group gave the film an R rating, supposedly limiting access to those over the age of 17 unless accompanied by an adult. (And in fact, this film encapsulates the entire problem with the ratings system since no “mainstream” motion picture deserves and NC-17 more.) But if a 2 second glimpse of Janet’s nipple is going to cause such an uproar, shouldn’t watching a guy get his eye pecked out by a crow (even if he’s a “sinner”) while being crucified be a bit troubling? If the FCC is going to attack Howard Stern for saying things on the completely non-visual medium of the radio, very similar things, mind you, to comments made by Oprah on her television show, shouldn’t watching a good 75-90 minutes of someone being tortured relentlessly give them a little pause? And I’m not even addressing the crime of any network subjecting audiences to this incredibly mediocre 2 hour movie. They have the right to do that, and they do it all the time; usually nobody is ever punished, with the exception, I suppose, of ABC.
I look forward to seeing the results of this bidding war.
OK, not really. But I do look forward to seeing ABC, CBS, NBC or Fox pay tens of millions of dollars for the right to be fined by the FCC, because if there is any sort of justice or reason in the country, they should be. And if anyone’s placing bets, I’d say CBS will come out the “winner.” The network is already known for broadcasting more conservative programming aimed at an older audience, Survivor and the CSI shows notwithstanding. Besides, CBS topper Les Moonves already showed his conservative colors through his decisions to censor MoveOn.org’s paid ad during the Super Bowl and to pull The Reagans, a film which really only committed one crime, that of being excessively dull and mediocre.
Actually, I have no problem with a network broadcasting The Passion. Everyone from 5-95 should have the right to see the movie if they want, and those educated, thoughtful and rational people (especially parents) out there should know that its a movie that is inappropriate for some younger audiences (and older ones easily susceptible to nightmares … like my girlfriend). I am troubled by our government’s decisions to impose ridiculous fines on broadcasters for material deemed “indecent” by a five-person panel in Washington, bi-partisan or not. As I had been thinking about for the past couple weeks and coincidentally Arianna Huffington mentioned on Stern’s show this morning, if fast food restaurants aren’t liable for the resulting health problems of their customers because people should be responsible for what they eat, why are broadcasters and filmmakers responsible for content (which by the way has not yet been proven to directly cause obesity or other physical health problems) on TV or the radio that the consumer can quite easily turn-off.
And that’s all I have to say about that. For now.
Out of Focus 