The Hot Blog

I am by no means an expert, but I thought Waxman did a decent job covering Hollywood when she was with the Post. So the question is, was she always this bad, or has she gone downhill since she joined NYT?

Maybe Left Behind should be made by award winning filmmaker Mel Gibson and not hacks.

Some interesting comments. I think the truth is probably somewhere in between what you, the producer and the New York Times reports.

Yes, the first Left Behind made slightly less than Maria Full of Grace on fewer screens...but that was with virtually no ink written about it at all in the arts sections of newspapers and absolutley no advertising on networks or television entertainment show exposure. It made that money in a pure cultural vacuum. It also had the cultural stigma of being a 'Christian film' attached to it.

Maria was written about profusely and promoted in even mid-tier markets and had an Oscar nominee behind it. It's gross represented a peak. Even with market saturation-for an art film- it couldn't go further. Many suspect that a well made 'Christian thriller' properly marketed and with a big budget could do much more because we now know the market is there.

Now I am not saying Left Behind is it. I have not seen any of the films...but is the last film of any lower quality than say Saw II? Both were shot in TO out of the same production offices.

Maybe the producer is greedy but I can see how he would think there is a bigger market out there for this type of product if done well and promoted using a different strategy. I'm not saying he is right...just that I can see the logic.

I also don't know if it is fair to question his statement that this series needs capitalization.

Is there big Christian capitalist money out there? Sure. There is money for every demographic; liberal cinema, gay cinema, feminist cinema, black cinema etc...nobody tells them to bypass the studios when they come knocking on the doors for projects that 'their community demographic' could otherwise finance. Why should the Christian fundamentalists?

Again...I understand your frustration at this type of story...but in the abstract, the potential for these types of projects hasn't quite been realized yet. The Passion was not really a fluke. It could be repeated and there is an audience for this sort of thing.

I suspect Narnia-if successful-will up the stakes even more.

It's possible I'd heard about the "Left Behind" movies when the first one came out, but I'm pretty sure I wasn't aware of their existence until they were parodied on "The Simpsons," where they were called "Left Below." Maybe the producer's complaint is that "Left Behind" should only be the name of the series, not a description of how Sony treated it.

Is Narnia actually going to be a Christian themed movie? Or will it sort of glaze over it.

I've never read the books so I'm not sure as to what extent it goes.

The original Left Behind had a very unusual distribution strategy: it streeted on video several months before it was released in theatres. No doubt, it was destined to be a DTV release all along, but the huge surprise success of the Omega Code in theatres persuaded the producers to go the theatrical route.

I can't say that Sony's done anything wrong. A DTV sequel to a niche DTV cheapie isn't really something you want to throw tons of marketing dollars at, is it?

Regarding Narnia: the movie is not at all overtly Christian. But that hasn't stopped evangelicals from busting a giant nut over the film. I'm sure they dream about performing the same kind of "altar calls" that are described in the NY Times article.

And Disney hasn't dissuaded the evangelical community from coopting Narnia; far from it. Motive has been kicking the Mouse's ass in marketing the film over the past few months. Their work has been awesome in penetrating the difficult (and cynical) Christian market, and it'll pay mucho dividends come opening day. Hopefully the secular audiences won't be scared off.....

It'll be interesting to see how Narnia pans out. Being unaquainted with the books, I can't help but feel too abviously appears to be jumping on the Potter success. Unlike the trailers for Potter 4, Narnia isn't really selling us a story so much as it is a big "Dragonheart" for kids. Unless they crank up the urgency, (something done masterfully in previews for Lord of the Rings, Potter and even King Kong) I don't see it hitting.

The Narnia works really have no connection to Christianity outside of their author's reputation and some vague allegory. Why are so many Christians getting so excited about it? Is it purely the packaging?
I thought they hated Harry Potter because of the witchcraft/magic elements. Won't that apply here?

So if Narnia has no real actual Christian themes, yet has a core Christian base, that could work well for Disney. They won't be bashing non-Christians over the head with Christian beliefs, but they also won't be ignoring them entirely because the Christian audience will have their own beliefs about the movie.

Two audiences for the price of one.

I remember The Omega Code! Wasn't that the movie with Casper Van Dien. Whatever happened to him...?

The Narnia books are a clear Christian allegory. The final book, in particular, makes clear that the lion is a 1:1 representation of God.

Tolkien and Lewis were friends, but apparently Tolkien criticized the Narnia books for their simplistic retelling of the Christian myths. Tolkien thought they were too literal-minded in doing so. But hey, they're for kids anyways.

Anyways. If the Narnia filmmakers try to strip too much of the Christian elements from the movie, there won't be much left. But it's also possible to cater to that crowd without the rest of the audience picking up on it.

Narnia is Christian in a metaphorical sense not literal.

It is a very beloved and important piece of work to Christians and CS Lewis is a very respected Christian philosopher. Nevertheless...if one does not want to see it this way, one doesn't have to and it will hopefully just be a rousing yarn.

However, the hysteria on some sides is already starting up. A few weeks ago Toronto's Globe and Mail already 'warned' parents about the potential 'subversive Christian message' in the film. Now the Globe and Mail is a rather hysterical newspaper (the NYT's looks positively shining by comparison), but I suspect by the time the film comes out the usual suspects will have already lathered themselves into a fever pitch.

With Narnia, if done right, both the secular and Christian market's could be served well. If they accomplish this, Disney should be commended.

hollywood thinks they can just make a movie and call it christian and expect christians to flock to it. they don't get it.

You can bet they say daily prayers about Narnia. They need that become a huge franchise type hit.

I've seen the first Left Behind movie, and it is about what you'd expect considering it was made by fledgling filmmakers with a vision impossible to realize with their budget.

One wonders if the Left Behind books, which have sold a bazillion copies, had come after the phenomenon that was "The Passion", that the movie adaptations would have warranted some Hollywood-level adaptations.

By the way, kudos to Nicol D for two great posts.

I would love to see a Left Behind movie as made by a non-believer. It would be positively eerie. What if only a small group, like Mormons, suddenly disappeared? That would be pretty funny for everyone else. (Yes, I know South Park did that).

The Mormoms ended up being the only people let into heaven. They didn't disappear.

Again I'll say it. The NY Slimes is a rag.

I can't believe that some really think that Christian people are robots and will support anything stamped "Christian". It's like they don't care about quality too?

Is this thing on?

Blustealer, thanks for your correction, but I was talking about the basic joke, not the specifics.

If Christians are concerned about quality, then why did the Left Behind books/movies make any money at all?

If you don't like the Left behind books thats your prerogative. But they're plenty of people that love them. Just like people love/hate Harry Potter books, James Bond books, John Grisham books, Tom Clancy books, Stephen King books, etc.

I mean that in a friendly way.

I don't know, I've never read them. In your opinion, what is their literary merit?

It seems pretty obvious to me that the Christian groups that would indeed get behind obscure movies like Left Behind wouldn't give a rats ass about quality. They're the same people who have tried to have movies like Mysterious Skin, Irreversable and others banned. And even succeeded in getting Baise Moi and Ken Park banned.

I mean, they hadn't even seen these movies so I'm sure if they heard a movie was even remotely promoting Christianity then they'd see it. Even it was a non-stop visual rape of violence and gore-mongering.

Oh, wait... they already did that. Silly me.

They're special screening these Kirk Cameron movies in churches. Of course they don't care about artistic merit. It's completely cynical, and for Sony and the NY Times to jump on it because of the money to milk is equally cynical.

There is this thoroughly fascinating film from the seventies made by fundementalists called "A Thief in the Night." I watched it in a humanities class years ago and was effected by it's unbridled rawness... sorta reminded me of "Billy Jack." I actually ended up writing a paper on it! It's completely amateurish and naive, but so pure in conviction, like a Johnathan Edwards sermon, there's no denying its chilling power.

Really hard to find, but a must see for fans of "religion porn."

Thanks to the Jayson Blair scandal and the success of Fox News Channel, the NYTimes is being pushed toward uncritical coverage of the right wing. The current U.S. government is a right-wing government. Christian fundamentalists have historically had right-wing views.

This pressure to go soft on the right wing is coming from inside the NYTimes. Other organizations (including the UK press) have reported on this.

The mainstream media have always been soft on religion -- and especially soft on fundamentalists. This is why pro-censorship groups like the American Family Association have been able to maintain their clout over the years. The kicker is that the AFA's founder believes Hollywood is run by Jews.

What a whiner. $1.2 million is $1.2 million more than was spent promoting LOST SKELETON. :-(

Hey Chucky, why do you go off on rants like this but then not get involved in the long-running debates?

Is this working now?

Chucky, no offense, you have good things to say but only in isolated bursts, it seems.

What's with the desire to paint The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe with such a heavy Christian brush? As I recall from reading it as a kid, the book has a tiny bit that can be seen as a Christian allegory, and about 95% that is just a story of four children fighting a witch. C.S. only got into the hardcore 1:1 ratio of Christian allegory in the 7th book. TLTWATW can exist as a secular story just as well as anything else.

Hell, I was watching Season One of Battlestar Galactica on DVD last night, and I saw more Christian allegory in that than I did in the book of TLTWATW.

I can understand Disney at least partially marketing it to churches - these are the same people claiming that Hollywood never gives them anaything they can take their children to and helped make Passion such a success. Disney is saying, you can take your kids to this. it doesn't contradict with your values.

That's not going to stop me from watching it, or telling the people who seem to be offended that a studio is courting a Christian audience to chill out and realize the book stood on its own merits long before the Christians took it up as one of their own.

I think it's just because the film has apparently become one of those films that the Christian world is apparently getting a hard-on for.

But, the hardcore christians (who only see movies with christian themes) obviously don't care about whether a movie is actually good. They're the people who have tried to have (and have succeeded in some cases) in getting films banned here. Mysterious Skin was the most recent they wanted banned. and look how good that one was.

hopefully without offending anyone, hardcore Christians probably don't see very many movies in any given year anyway, so their notions of whether a movie is 'good' or 'bad' are likely to be very different from someone like me, who sees 100+ movies a year.

Christians are like every other demographic...some like good films, some like bad films...some are smart...some not so. Just like every other demographic; gay, straight, feminist, liberal, Jew, black, Muslim, conservative etc.

Just like every other demographic also tries to ban or censor films/art/literature. Have Christians tried to censor some films. Sure.

Just like homosexual activists tried to censor Basic Instinct and Braveheart.

Just like feminists tried to censor Ford Fairlane when Andrew Dice Clay was at his peak.

Just like African Americans did with Song of the South.

Just like the left tried with The Passion.

No group is immune to trying to influence popular culture and many often go to extremes to do it.

Let's not forget...the greatest form of censorship created in three generations is political correctness. And that's not a creation of Christians.

Funny how all of the people who can recite and quote every complaint a Christian ever made in the past forty years conveniently forget when it
it's one of their own demographics.

Nicol, you are totally correct. But it seems to me that truly hardcore religious folk are more likely to be isolated - by their own choice - from mainstream commercial entertainment than any of the other groups you mention anove there. I wouldn't expect an Amish person to have an extensive movie-watching background either. That was my point.

Did the left really try to 'censor' The Passion? I thought that was a hyped over-reaction on the side of its defenders. I'm not arguing with you, I honestly am curious about any instances.

The Left couldn't censor the Passion because it was an independent film.

Huh? Aren't independent films the easiest to censor, not having it corporate backing?

replace 'it' with 'big'. Typo.

How can independent movies be censored? The studios and the powers that be have no control of editing or money. And movie houses will play anything that makes money.

I see, I thought you or Josh (travel together much?) meant banning the movie. Obviously since it was self-financed by Gibson he could make it however he wanted. Did anyone seriously try to ban it?

Dave l,

Thanks for the question. I know many are sick of The Passion and all around it. But I can't live in the world and pretend that what happened didn't happen. I do not believe the reaction on part of Gibson was over-reacting.

Love him or hate him, Gibson was being attacked in print as early as late 2002. Articles written in prominent newspapers such as the LA Times and the New York Times (and others) routinely carried out attacks on the film. Frank Rich made a virtual cottage industry out of his attacks on Gibson. A Democratic senator organized a boycott and throughout production numerous 'academics' came out to slander Gibson. Sadly, his father didn't help matters...but that's his father, not him.

I certainly think someone would be hardpressed to find another film in recent history (and I'm talking decades here) that was more organically controversial. (As opposed to the "Hey look at me I'm controversial!" style many try to employ).

Geffen, Katzenberg and Amy Pascal of Sony were quoted as saying they would never work with Gibson. They later denied saying that. I don't know if this part is true. You be the judge. Does it sound possible?

Also, let's not forgot...much of the 'censorship', if this is what we will call it, came from within the industry itself. Usually when filmmakers are attacked, the film industry (or at least some prominent members) will come out to defend them. Instead, Mel was met with a lot of silence. I remember Tarantino defending him after it became a hit, and a few second tier types but, oh yes...the left tried to censor/smear it.

At the same time The Passion came out, John Cameron Mitchell was trying to put together his followup to Hedwig and the Angry Inch called Shortbus. The hook was that all the actors would have real sex. He wanted to cast a friend of his named Sook-Yin Lee who is/was a broadcaster for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation at the time. They at first did not want her to do the film because it would interfere with her work schedule. She of course cried 'homophobia' and a whole slew of directors (Coppola, Cronenberg, Egoyan) wrote a letter in her defense. She got the gig.

Now calling the CBC (a hard left news organization) homophobic is like calling the RNC anti-capitalist.

I waited for these same directors to stand up for Gibson. Nada...zippo...zilch. That's partly why I had no sympathy for Egoyan during his latest MPAA woes, as Gibson had even produced a film for him a few years back (Felicia's Journey).

Students at a university in Florida recently tried to screen The Passion and were told they couldn't because it was R rated. The school had no problem however with the drama department putting on a play called 'F***ing for Jesus'. Censorship? You be the judge.

Again, in theory only a government can censor, but if we broaden the definition to say Christians censor when they complain, we have to broaden it for everyone and in this case the left does not come off clean.

I hope this response clarifies my position for you. Again, when it comes to free speech I am a libertarian. Everyone should have a say. Sometimes I just think that those who cry for tolerance are the least tolerant of all...and they just don't see it.

Best.

Gibson got savaged by a lot of the print media. I guess some don't like God in their lives and tried to take him down.

Bruce, there are a lot of people who don't like God in their lives. Good thing we live in a free country.

Thanks Nicol, I was out of the loop when The Passion happened, until I saw it and was like 'what's the big deal'.

Nicol, Frank Rich acted like a fool (what else is new) and made an ass of himself with his insane rants about Gibson and The Passion. No doubt about that. But was there really an active campaign by the left to censor The Passion? I don't think there was.

The countdown clock is ticking until someone says "Hey Stella's Girl" and begins bashing. Which of our contestants will it be?

Why is being funny now considered "bashing"? With your logic jeffmcm everyone is considered a basher who doesn't agree with your Left point of view. That's not nice.

Being called third grade names is funny? It wasn't funny when it started six months ago, and it sure as hell isn't funny now, after it's been used 1,000 times. I guess I never expected childish insults like that to be used around here. Boy was I wrong. Some of you can't get enough of it. But hey, if it really makes you laugh, all the power to you. That says a whole lot more about you than it does me.

Stella's Girl. Ha. That is funny though. Considering how upset the dude gets. Like take off the skirt and relax.

Merely a prediction based on past experiences on this site. Please, if you want to be funny or have a simple disagreement, go ahead, I'm not stopping you. But the only way to have a polite discussion around here seems to be when Poland threatens to put the boot down.

Wow, Josephine, you are one funny chick.

Jeff,
Where do you get off always thinking your the voice of reason? From my understanding your involved or being a baby in just about every thread. Why don't you take that advice and apply it to yourself?

People in them glass houses.....

Should I pull a Stella and bitch and complain and pout and say I'm never coming back here again because of it?????

I couldn't resort to that level.

If you're selling censorship in 2005? I'm not buying. There is just too much money involved. Why bother when you can make the dough off it?

Stella's Girl. I take full credit for that one. Fits so nicely with her being so emotional. Just pray we don't get SG posting on "that time" of the month.

Didn't The Passion make 400$ million bucks? I'm sure a lot of people didn't want to see it do well but a conspiracy?

Mark, I'm guessing you're a single guy.

HEY!!!! Monkeys!!!! Chill the pissing match, please.

And I hate to be pointing at you again, J-Mc, but you baited the room and you generated a rant by SB.

Maybe you were 100% right and the personal attack would have come. But why ask for it before it happens? I don't get the logic.

That doesn't make idiotic "Stella's Girl" comments either funny or worthy. But begging to get beat is a lot more likely to get you beat than not.

And for the record, I agree 100% with what SB wrote in the first place and was accused for months of being a right winger for pointing out that while there wee many attacks on Gibson, some were deserved, some were not and censorship was never an issue.

You're right, Dave. I jumped the gun (glad I was gone all afternoon)
But as far as I'm concerned, it was the equivalent of the scene in a movie where a car crashes, and the driver has to crawl out while in the meantime we can see gas leaking closer to a sparkplug or something. The conditions are all ready for the explosion, it's just a matter of time.

You can ban me if you want.

Boy, this place quiets down fast.

I haven't banned anyone and plan on banning no one... not the point.

Thanks for acknowledging, but the ferocity of the example seems a little much.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)