LEO SANDON Many movies address religious themes

Recently Robert Novak, syndicated columnist and ubiquitous talking head, expressed outrage on CNN's "Capital Gang" that Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" had not been nominated for an Academy Award for Best Picture or Best Actor. Much less Best Director. Novak declared that the conspicuous absence of "The Passion" from the list of major nominations disclosed Hollywood's anti-Catholic, even anti-Christian prejudices.
"The Passion of the Christ" was and continues to be one blockbuster of a movie, for sure a barometer of popular religious culture in America. It is scary that so many who jammed theaters to see it brought the same literalist mentality to the film that they do to other texts, forgetting that the movie is Gibson's interpretation of the Christian Passion narrative, not a presentation of how it actually happened.
The specific tradition in which the film itself belongs is the late medieval Passion play brought by Gibson to 21st-century cinematic expression with special effects, along with much of the baggage associated with the genre. Baggage such as implicit anti-Semitism. "The Passion" is an important film, and for many an inspiring one, but not Best Picture quality. Its nominations for cinematography, music and makeup awards were justified.
In the wake of last month's awards have come the inevitable autopsies and complaints of this or that jewel of a film snubbed by the un-American Hollywood crowd. And the movie industry itself is being dissed by many pundits for its increasing irrelevancy. In the age of big-screen, flat-panel, digital TV, who cares?
What makes it religious?
One interesting question emerging from the discussion is: What makes a movie religious? Or Christian? Or nonreligious-secular? One thinker who probed such questions was the late Paul Tillich, a German theologian who immigrated to the United States in 1933 and taught at the Union Theological Seminary in New York, at Harvard and at the University of Chicago. Although Tillich focused primarily on sculpture and painting, I think his insights are applicable to cinematic art.
In Tillich's analysis a movie might be religious in subject matter but not particularly religious in the way it interprets and presents the subject. Conversely, a film might not focus directly on a religious subject but nonetheless might reveal "the human situation in its conflicts." The writer and director who can bear and express guilt, who can experience meaning within the context of meaninglessness, therefore, are doing religion.
Three films expressed such religious dimensions for me:
*The big winner, "Million Dollar Baby." I am not particularly into boxing, and I was born 30 years too soon to be comfortable with women in the professional ring. Ostensibly, then, it was neither "religious" nor my kind of movie. But it did convincingly reveal "the human situation in its conflicts" and moved me with its sensitivity and tenderness.
*"Sideways," my choice for Best Picture. (And I would've picked Paul Giamatti as Best Actor.) I find this film more than comedy. The portrayal is bittersweet, treating themes of loneliness, failure, the need for authenticity and intimacy.
*"Hotel Rwanda." If I were a pastor I would bus my congregation to see this arresting and sobering interpretation of 1994 genocide in Africa. The story of Paul Rusesabagina (Don Cheadle) is that of a man's painful struggle to answer this Gospel question: "Who is my neighbor?"
Every film talking about religion isn't getting there; some that aren't talking are already there.
XLeo Sandon is distinguished teaching professor of religion and American studies at Florida State University.
Knight Ridder Newspapers