Here's some of the text of a FoxNews
article about
The Passion of the Christ:
Theater-goers will also be hard-pressed to find "The Passion of the Christ" in Nassau County, Long Island on either the south or north shore, or in affluent Westchester County, New York.
The pattern, for the most part, highlights black neighborhoods and poor neighborhoods. For example, all the Magic Johnson theatres in the country will show the movie, as will multiplexes in urban centers.
Gibson obviously thinks there's a potential problem in Chicago, where "Passion" will be on only two screens. Otherwise, Chicagoans will have to go to the suburbs.
The same goes for the wealthier and trendier parts of Los Angeles such as Beverly Hills and Century City. Those who are curious will have to seek their "Passion" in odd places, in out-of-the-way cineplexes. You won't be able to see it at the Beverly Center, for example. But four theatres in economically less desirable San Jose, Calif. will show the film.
All of this seems designed to keep "The Passion of the Christ" out of neighborhoods that are considered Jewish, upscale or liberal.
[...]
Newmarket Films, which is distributing the movie, seems to have picked a pattern that concentrates heavily on the south and the Midwest, focusing on the Bible Belt and locations where "The Passion of the Christ" will meet with the least resistance. West Virginia will have about three times as many theaters as Rhode Island, for example. Vermonters have three theatres while their more conservative next-door neighbors in New Hampshire, a state equal in size, will have twelve.
Calls to Newmarket and to its public relations firm were not returned to this column yesterday. But in the positioning of "The Passion of the Christ," Gibson has consciously created a divisive atmosphere for the presentation of his film. For example, he has screened the movie widely for groups on the religious right while avoiding all mainstream groups, as well as film critics for fear of poor advance word.
I thought Mel Gibson wanted to start a community-wide discussion. If the article is even remotely accurate, then all of the anti-Semitic criticism of Gibson would appear to be justified. He seems to be making the situation worse: by not showing the film in affluent, liberal, and Jewish neighborhoods, he makes the object of contention scarce for those who would facially oppose it. And what does that do? It only intensifies the myth of his anti-Semitic intentions. (I say "myth" because I haven't seen the film, so I cannot make any such determinations.) If something is labeled "bad," then restricting access to it could not possibly change the perception. Only critical analysis can achieve that. At any rate, I think it's very odd he would choose to go about the movie's distribution in this way...