Religion reporters face many challenges covering the new Mel Gibson (news) film, "The Passion of the Christ." Among them: balancing the often-opposing reactions of Christians and Jews, and carefully drawing on religious history to put the movie into perspective.
But their biggest challenge may be getting in to see the film in the first place.
Despite the fact that Gibson and the film's distributor have provided screenings to thousands of clergy and church-members, few reporters have been allowed to see it, sparking frustration from those on the religion beat and prompting the Religion Newswriters Association (RNA) to call for the establishment of press previews.
"We would like to see it for ourselves," said Michael Paulson, a four-year religion reporter for The Boston Globe (Click for QuikCap). "Not rely on the opinions of hand-picked viewers."
Alan Cooperman, who covers religion for The Washington Post, agreed. "That is the journalistic oddity," he said of the lack of access to the film for reporters covering various aspects of it. "It is like writing about a book when you haven't read the book -- I have been reluctant to write about it."
Debra Mason, RNA executive director, said she knew of only three writers -- from The Associated Press, The Washington Times and The Atlanta Journal-Constitution -- who had seen the film through the private showings. She said her group, which represents 240 religion writers, has begun a campaign to seek some press viewing of the film, but offered no details. "Access to screenings has become a central issue for us. This is a film that has been shown to parts of the public for months."
Julia Duin, a religion reporter for The Washington Times, tells a bizarre tale of being invited to a screening at a church in Orlando, Fla., on Jan. 21 by Gibson's publicist. At the event, she says she was forced to sign a confidentiality agreement promising not to reveal anything about the film, was kicked out before the film started, and eventually snuck back in to view all but 25 minutes of the movie.
"Paranoia is a good adjective to describe it," she said of the experience. "I did not enjoy it." When asked about the film, she said it was "not very complimentary to the Jewish leaders of the time, but I didn't think it was anti-Semitic. I don't think you come away from it thinking that Jews are all bad for all time."
The agreement Duin had to sign stated that "'The Passion of the Christ,' is a work in progress, not yet ready for public scrutiny." It also required screeners to agree to "hold confidential my exposure, knowledge and opinions of the film and the question and answer session with Mr. Gibson."
The statement added that a media embargo for reviews and articles about the film's contents would be in effect until the week the film opens, but "pastors and church leaders are free to speak out in support of the movie and your opinions resulting from today's experience and exposure to this project."
Reporters are demanding screenings following months of controversy, hype and related stories that they have covered since word of the movie began reaching newsrooms as early as January 2003. "I have been concerned about people writing about a movie that no one has seen," said Cathleen Falsani, who has been on the religion beat for three and a half years at the Chicago Sun-Times, but written only two "Passion"-related stories. "That is why I have held off."
Slated to open on Ash Wednesday, Feb. 25, the film initially made news when Jewish leaders criticized it for promoting anti-Semitism, even before the production was completed. Then, when the producers began holding private screenings for Christian groups and churches, including the one in Orlando that Jewish leaders reportedly snuck in to, newspapers had another angle to approach. More recently, newspapers have been writing about the frenzy by numerous churches to buy up tickets -- thousands at a time in some cases -- for parishioners, while also promoting the movie in their services and lobbies.
"It has sort of taken on a life of its own," said Larry Stammer, Los Angeles Times religion writer, whose stories have ranged from reaction by local Jewish leaders to the theology of the Passion narrative. "It keeps rolling down the hill faster and faster, but a lot of [the coverage] is legitimate."
Among the most noted national stories was a report that Pope John Paul II had seen the film and given it a positive reaction, which the Vatican later downplayed, while another looked at some screeners who were asked to sign agreements not to reveal elements of the film or offer a bad review. The Plain Dealer in Cleveland reported on the film's effect on local Christian-Jewish relations while The Kansas City Star examined who killed Jesus. That story drew such a reaction from local religious leaders that the paper set up a meeting with a delegation of six area clergymen to discuss it.
"It was intense," said Helen T. Gray, the Star reporter who wrote the story. "They were alarmed that just raising the question would spark anti-Semitism." She added that some in the group objected to minor elements, such as the term "the Jews" being used instead of "Jews," which they contend implicated all Jews in the death of Jesus.
At many newspapers, the film has crossed many beats, including religion, metro, entertainment and education. At least two papers, the Globe and the Plain Dealer, have held meetings within the past week involving different editorial staffs to plan coverage. "It is a fascinating story with a lot of overlap," said Peter Kendall, deputy metro editor at Chicago Tribune.
Religion Newswriters Association recently posted a six-page guide to coverage of "Passion" on its Web site, with tips for localizing the issue, lists of potential sources and experts, as well as warnings about how to handle many of the sensitive areas. "Memories of the Holocaust and the recent spike in anti-Semitism here and abroad have made the Jewish community sensitive to anything -- such as Gibson's movie -- that they fear could fuel anti-Jewish stereotypes and hatred," the guide states. "That's made presentation of the 'Passion' one of the most critical issues in interfaith relations today."
Another concern among some writers is the balance of the movie as a real news story versus its hype as an entertainment product. "The question is, did they push the controversy to get publicity?" asks Laurie Goodstein of The New York Times, who wrote a lengthy Page One story on the film last August. "I think it is a genuine controversy."
Others are careful to make sure their coverage is sensitive. "It is not just about the movie, it is about the Bible," said Don Lattin, 20-year religion writer for the San Francisco Chronicle. "It is a real opportunity for people to have an important discussion about how the Bible was put together."