It’s hard to believe it has been 10 years since the release of The Passion of the Christ.

To mark the anniversary, the UP-TV network (formerly GMC) will air the commercial television debut of The Passion on Palm Sunday night, April 13, at 9pm ET, headlining a two-week showcase of Bible-themed movies. It will be edited for television and will air with limited commercial breaks. Check your local listings.

Despite well-documented controversy surrounding it, The Passion was a watershed moment for faith-based films, particularly how they are marketed to believers. Having raked in $370 million domestically, it was a game changer, redefining box-office expectations for “religious” movies and raising the bar in terms of their artistry. It also created what can be referred to as “The Passion Effect” — a mad scramble to replicate that movie’s success that planted a mustard seed in Hollywood and would eventually pave the way for films like the recently released Son of God and Noah.

Tom Allen, who helped distribute and market The Passion, co-authored the million-selling book A Guide to the Passion and went on to co-found Allied Faith & Family (AFF), a Hollywood PR/marketing agency that promotes faith-oriented entertainment. I recently had a chance to speak with him about movies, Mel Gibson and his passion for this landmark motion picture.

 

You are credited on The Passion of the Christ. How did you get involved in the project?

In August 2003, six months before the release of the film, I was brought by an Australian friend to meet Mel Gibson and pitch him a film project about St. Edmund Campion of Elizabethan England. During this visit, we got swept up in the whirlwind of The Passion of the Christ. The studios in Hollywood had begun declining to distribute the film, which was in post-production at the time, so I arrived on the scene as the early discussions of an independent distribution of the film began taking place.

 

What did your role turn out to be?

I was running Catholic Exchange at the time and also producing “Morning Air With Jeff Cavins” for the Relevant Radio Network, so there was a focus on Catholic marketing and helping raise P&A (prints & advertising) funds for the U.S. distribution of the film. I also quarterbacked a book project called A Guide to the Passion, which created a lot of energy in the market in the lead-up to the film’s release.

 

Heated controversy surrounding the film began months prior to its release. What kind of effect did that controversy have on your efforts?

The controversial aspect was a mixed bag, repelling some and attracting others drawn by the prospect of this film doing what it has in fact done — paving the way for a restoration of the kind of faith-oriented filmmaking that we saw in the ’40s, ’50s and ’60s in Hollywood. We’re now seeing a faith-film renaissance, with successes like Les Miserables, Son of God, Noah and the upcoming Heaven Is for Real and Exodus: Gods and Kings. This is a historic time for faith-based films, and in my view, it was all made possible by The Passion of the Christ.

 

Mobilizing faith communities through grassroots marketing was critical to the film’s box-office success. Tell me about that aspect.

Again, I was deeply involved with two major media apostolates back then, so I had two megaphones to the Catholic grassroots that we were utilizing to get the word out about this powerful film. We ran a steady stream of feature articles and newsmaker interviews that provided a strong boost to the Catholic marketing outreach, and we moved books into churches across the denominational spectrum to prime the market for the Ash Wednesday release. 

 

The movie is very Catholic in its theology, particularly its strong Marian elements. Why do you think the film enjoyed such ecumenical admiration?

The entire Christian market, Catholic and interdenominational Protestant, was ready for a movie like The Passion. It combined theological seriousness with a high level of artistry — qualities that faith films from the preceding decade like The Omega Code and Left Behind notably lacked. It also included a key ingredient that people got very excited about, an “800-pound Hollywood gorilla” named Mel Gibson, who, at the time, was “America’s Favorite Movie Star,” according to a November 2003 Harris Poll, and also an Oscar-winning director (Braveheart, 1995). The pressure had long been building in Christian circles for a serious movie that served the faith marketplace, to the point where once the right person stepped up and delivered, the audience was poised to break down the doors to see it. And that’s what happened.

 

What effect did this have on the Protestant Christians with whom you were working?

The period surrounding The Passion represents a watershed moment for Catholic-Protestant relations in America, in my view. Culturally, we were worlds apart from each other, until we suddenly found ourselves on the same side of a major cultural battle involving the very heart of our shared faith — Jesus Christ crucified. Long relegated to the back of the theater, Christians found themselves at the center of a pop-culture phenomenon, a major motion picture that was generating intense worldwide interest. People around the world of all faiths and no faith were talking about Christ’s sacrifice and its meaning for mankind. Those of us working on the film recognized the magnitude of what was happening and were only too happy to set aside our differences and celebrate our common beliefs. Interestingly, there were many Protestants involved with the project who told me that they had never before encountered a knowledgeable, engaged, enthusiastic Catholic who knew Scripture and had a heart for Christ — but, suddenly, they were sharing a foxhole with a bunch of them. More than one Protestant filmmaker expressed bewilderment that “it took a Catholic to make the big break-out Christian film.”

 

I remember reading articles slamming the film before it even came out. Did you get a sense that many in the secular media would react that way? Did you think mainstream media, overall, treated the film fairly?

Certainly, the secular media reacted in its usual way, hyping the film both positively and negatively, expressing all points of view and wringing every bit of juice out of what became a truly phenomenal cultural event. The film tackled a core subject of our heritage and linchpin of our civilization that people on all sides were eager to hash out. The media just did what it does, and hungry news consumers gobbled it all up. We live in a diverse pluralistic society, and these public debates are healthy. But I think when all was said and done, it was a dramatic net positive for Christianity and the Church.

 

After The Passion, others in the industry tried to capitalize on religious zeitgeist and replicate its success, but fell short.  Why? Why do you think films like, say, The Nativity Story failed, at least commercially? 

There are many factors that come into play, but authenticity is a rock-bottom requirement for these films to succeed. The Nativity Story includes a scene of Mary rebelling against the Roman authorities, interfering with their pursuit of an insurrectionist. Anyone with even a basic understanding of Marian theology knows that the Mother of Christ was not a political activist. Word of mouth either carries a film or stops it in its tracks.

 

As Ash Wednesday 2004 approached, did you think The Passion would become the blockbuster phenomenon it soon became? Do you think Mel Gibson did?

Yes and yes. It was a nerve-racking journey, but we all did feel the power of what was building up in the months prior to the film’s release. The earned media we were generating through our collective marketing efforts was practically impossible to keep up with, and the free media the film was getting from the anti-Christian voices and the Anti-Defamation League’s activities [claiming the film was anti-Semitic] was priceless.

 

Looking at the movie after 10 years, how do you think The Passion holds up cinematically?

Quite well. I’ve watched it most Good Fridays during the last decade, and it has moved me each time. Its production design, cinematography, score, performances — they’re all sublime. It remains, in my mind, the gold standard of faith-based films.

 

And you think many people still watch it during Lent?

Many do. In fact, my friend Father C.J. McCloskey recently told me that, every year, on the morning of Good Friday, he watches it. He was present at the first advance screening in Washington, D.C., with 40 writers, critics and faith leaders, with the late MPAA head Jack Valenti presiding. Afterward, there was dead silence and crying in the room. These were experiences many will never forget. Those who haven’t seen it in awhile or whose kids (12 and up) never saw it should try to catch the edited-for-television version on Palm Sunday night.

 

It was obviously a deeply personal work of devotional art, with many powerful and moving moments. What scene touched you deepest?

Probably when he’s on the cross, crying out to the Father (in Aramaic) about being forsaken. Jim (Caviezel) is particularly brilliant in that moment, and it always transports me to the cross and stirs my emotions. I’m also partial to the scenes between Christ and Pilate and feel deep sympathy for both, for Jesus because he’s so innocent and beautiful and for Pilate because he represents all those who can’t see Truth, even when it’s staring them right in the face.

There have been recent editorials calling for Hollywood to remove Mel Gibson from its “blacklist.” What was it like working with Gibson, and what are your thoughts on his present situation?

Working with him was exciting because of what a bright, informed and gifted man he is, but also a challenge because he was off the reservation on certain points of Catholic doctrine. I attended Masses with him — always extraordinary form — in his office, in Rome and at his church. He was faithful in his practice and always made sure there were opportunities for confession.

Mel is a kind and thoughtful guy and also very intense. He was, of course, going through a world-class pressure cooker of a situation during the 15 months or so that I worked with him, and it’s difficult to emerge from such a situation completely intact. He’s also a genius whose unique talent should be embraced by the Hollywood creative community rather than rejected. As this is the 10th year that countless Christians will watch The Passion of the Christ during Holy Week, it is a good occasion to support the call for Mel’s reinstatement as a creative force in Hollywood. He’s something of a martyr in his current situation, as a kind of a pariah in Hollywood. Certainly his personal life over the last decade has been turbulent, but I know plenty of others in this town whose fame and wealth have caused them to jump the rails in their personal lives.

In my opinion, his blacklisting may be more about anti-Catholic bigotry than alleged anti-Semitism. But in any case, must we listen to the gossip columnists and shock jocks and drive the artist from the village? Must we force this incredibly gifted Christian filmmaker with the explosive temperament to cut off his ear? Or can we just let him make his art and continue enriching the culture? Mel was a pioneer who took the arrows so that the “settlers”  — faith-oriented storytellers and filmmakers everywhere — could thrive. Those persecuting him should consider the words of Pope Francis: “Who am I to judge?”

 

Biblical films used to be a staple of Hollywood. Why is it so difficult to get them made today and do them well?

Well, audiences have become much more sophisticated than they were back when The Robe was a big hit. So the full complement of artistic elements needs to be there. But there also needs to be solid theological grounding, or else you lose your base. Financial hurdles are the first mountain range you need to cross, though. It is very difficult to get any movie green-lit by a studio, and they’re the ones that do this for a living. If the climate isn’t right there — as it hasn’t been for about the last 50 years before now — then one has to raise enormous amounts of capital from private equity sources. Unfortunately, there are too many Christian investors who come into the space with guns blazing and blinders on, long on evangelical zeal but light on humility and the kind of industry relationships that can make a project work. Consequently, they make a succession of poor decisions that causes them to produce a lemon, lose their money and never come back.

Downstream of this, you have marketers who are put in a position of having to promote a sub-par film and church faithful who are sold a bill of goods. This could be prevented if film funders took greater care in building the right team. God raises people up to play different roles, and the role of the funder needs to be approached with as much good sense, care and dedication as the business and creative roles.

I try periodically to talk principals into adjusting their roadmap, strengthening their creative team, improving pedestrian scripts, eliminating awkward scenes, etc., but they are usually unwilling to make changes. They revert back to the “Golden Rule” as they know it — “He who has the gold rules.” And they lose their play money.

 

In general, do you think Hollywood “gets” faith audiences?

Some execs do, and some don’t. Those who do are being vindicated, and those who don’t are learning.

 

What do you make of the recent interest in biblical-themed movies? Do you think films like Noah, Son of God and Ridley Scott’s yet-to-be-released Exodus: Gods and Kings will usher in a new crop of Bible movies? 

I’m very encouraged by what’s going on. I actually thought this faith-film explosion would begin back in 2005, but the industry wasn’t ready for it then. Studio heads — not naturally inclined to go in this direction — required more proof that the faith market was a safe bet.

People say that Hollywood doesn’t serve the faith market for ideological reasons, but I don’t necessarily believe that’s true. From what I’ve observed, profit trumps ideology in this town. So after The Blind Side, Fireproof, Of Gods and Men, Soul Surfer and a few other faith releases enjoyed box-office success, studios mustered up the courage to launch the kind of big-budget Bible epics that we grew up watching. What this shows is what we’ve been saying for 20 years now: that there is an appetite for these types of movies and that there is a substantial market segment that is eager to see them. The more authentically and respectfully they’re made, the better they will perform.

I believe that, in this age of market fragmentation, we’re only at the beginning of a trend that could become a fixture in the Hollywood content mix. Because the vast faith audience is and always will be the largest of all market niches.

 

What is your favorite story from your time working with Mel Gibson?

There was this beautiful old priest who said the Masses in Rome for the cast and crew during production. He would delve so deeply into the Eucharistic prayers and consecration that he seemed to enter into an ecstatic state. He would move slowly, deliberately, and not look up until he was administering holy Communion. There was one Mass where he finally looked up to see Jim Caviezel in full makeup as the scourged and bloody Christ standing before him, and he staggered backwards until he could gain his composure. The actors playing Sts. Peter and John, also in full costume, were standing behind Jim on the line.

David DiCerto is a Catholic film critic and co-host with Register film critic Steven D. Greydanus of Reel Faith.