OUT TO SEA?
Roger Ebert, who is by no means anti-Semitic, once asked, in a review of a film that featured stock Nazis as vilains, "When will Germany be forgiven for the Holocaust? At least in the sense that Hollywood will stop reflexively associating German people with villainy, murder, and hatred?" (Answer: when it does something to combat the rise of Neo-Nazism; when it realizes that reparations cannot replace and are no substitute for a human life; when the German government actually formally actually acknowledges that the Holocaust happens; when it admits it was wrong to not let Israeli commandoes handle the Munich massacre; when it stops taking out its cosmetic guilt complex on the rest of us, and so on). Full disclosure: Ebert's grandfather is German. Ebert is sensitive to discrimination against all people, including Jews.
Wolfgang Petersen, director of Poseidon, which appears tomorrow, is German. Indeed, he is part of a group of German filmmakers that, if I recall, that belongs to an organization dedicated to ensuring that the image and role of German and German-American filmmakers is positive and prominent. This organization is also, as I recall, dedicated to sensitizing the Hollywood community to issues facing German and German-American filmmakers as they grapple with their "unique role" in using art to present a positive (as opposed to Hitlerian, I guess) vision of the future.
OK. So this guy is supposed to be sensitive, and others are supposed to be sensitive to him.
I normally refrain from criticizing a movie based upon what others perceive to be a "racial" or "racist agenda" the film is trying to convey. Why? Because we don't know the director's intent. Even if a scene was obviously meant to be "racist," how do we know that the DIRECTOR is racist, as opposed to merely attempting to depict racism?
The "racism" accusations, I think, reached an absurd crescendo with Star Wars Episode 1. According to conventional wisdom, the film was racist because Jar Jar Binks acted and spoke like Stepin' Fechit and was stupid (hence he was a caricature of a Jamaican and thus George Lucas was a racist for presenting us such a character); the Sith Lords were really Nazis (because they intended to conquer territories through subterfuge), and the Trade Federation was really the Japanese (evil people who were bumblingly inept pawns of a higher power - an Emperor - which in this case happened to be Palpatine - ooops - a German emperor).
And, of course, there was Watto, the slave merchant who drove a hard bargain. He had a big nose and talked a lot, so he was a stereotype of a Jew. I didn't make much of these accusations, in large part, because they are so interchangeable as to have no meaning. Jar Jar was meant to be a slow-witted character who spoke in a rather incomprehensible style. Couldn't the attackers of the film just as easily said that Lucas was demeaning people with learning disabilities by using this character? Why didn't the attackers do this? Why did they focus on the "Black" attack? Perhaps the attackers were indulging in more stereotypes than the Jews were. Also, take Watto. Jews, historically, were not slave traders. Other cultures - Semitic ones- with big noses were - and yes, some of these cultures like money. Lots do. Yet no one complained Watto was, say, a stereotypical 15th-century Italian. Again, those who cried "stereotype" seemed to be the ones doing the stereotyping.
It would take a director's unambiguous approval of a clear racist statement/message for me to state that the director was trafficking in racial stereotypes.
I have not seen "Poseidon" yet, but reviews I have read from critics of a wide variety of ethnicities and religions have attacked the film as being racist. The story involves the capsizing of a luxury liner, and the subsequent efforts of a group of passengers to find their way to the top of the ship, where they can presumably escape from disaster. There are ten central characters. 7 are white, 2 are Hispanic, and one is black. Some of the characters survive, and some do not. The film, which is not apparently heavy on characterization, nonetheless apparently gives perfunctory implied explanations as to why certain characters deserved to die and certain others did not.
From having read the reviews, I know which characters live and which die (did I mention that the ship is segregated by class, and that class plays a role in determining who survives?). Without having seen the picture, I cannot say whether the film is racist. Perhaps it is not, under the definition I have articulated above. But there is that nagging issue of Mr. Petersen's organization and its dedication to sensitivity. From reading the reviews, I must say that I do wonder whether he takes his commitment to the organization seriously.
To paraphrase Roger Ebert, whose question I believe I now have answered in long and short form, either the organization, or its patrons, appear to have been the victim of a disservice.
Wolfgang Petersen, director of Poseidon, which appears tomorrow, is German. Indeed, he is part of a group of German filmmakers that, if I recall, that belongs to an organization dedicated to ensuring that the image and role of German and German-American filmmakers is positive and prominent. This organization is also, as I recall, dedicated to sensitizing the Hollywood community to issues facing German and German-American filmmakers as they grapple with their "unique role" in using art to present a positive (as opposed to Hitlerian, I guess) vision of the future.
OK. So this guy is supposed to be sensitive, and others are supposed to be sensitive to him.
I normally refrain from criticizing a movie based upon what others perceive to be a "racial" or "racist agenda" the film is trying to convey. Why? Because we don't know the director's intent. Even if a scene was obviously meant to be "racist," how do we know that the DIRECTOR is racist, as opposed to merely attempting to depict racism?
The "racism" accusations, I think, reached an absurd crescendo with Star Wars Episode 1. According to conventional wisdom, the film was racist because Jar Jar Binks acted and spoke like Stepin' Fechit and was stupid (hence he was a caricature of a Jamaican and thus George Lucas was a racist for presenting us such a character); the Sith Lords were really Nazis (because they intended to conquer territories through subterfuge), and the Trade Federation was really the Japanese (evil people who were bumblingly inept pawns of a higher power - an Emperor - which in this case happened to be Palpatine - ooops - a German emperor).
And, of course, there was Watto, the slave merchant who drove a hard bargain. He had a big nose and talked a lot, so he was a stereotype of a Jew. I didn't make much of these accusations, in large part, because they are so interchangeable as to have no meaning. Jar Jar was meant to be a slow-witted character who spoke in a rather incomprehensible style. Couldn't the attackers of the film just as easily said that Lucas was demeaning people with learning disabilities by using this character? Why didn't the attackers do this? Why did they focus on the "Black" attack? Perhaps the attackers were indulging in more stereotypes than the Jews were. Also, take Watto. Jews, historically, were not slave traders. Other cultures - Semitic ones- with big noses were - and yes, some of these cultures like money. Lots do. Yet no one complained Watto was, say, a stereotypical 15th-century Italian. Again, those who cried "stereotype" seemed to be the ones doing the stereotyping.
It would take a director's unambiguous approval of a clear racist statement/message for me to state that the director was trafficking in racial stereotypes.
I have not seen "Poseidon" yet, but reviews I have read from critics of a wide variety of ethnicities and religions have attacked the film as being racist. The story involves the capsizing of a luxury liner, and the subsequent efforts of a group of passengers to find their way to the top of the ship, where they can presumably escape from disaster. There are ten central characters. 7 are white, 2 are Hispanic, and one is black. Some of the characters survive, and some do not. The film, which is not apparently heavy on characterization, nonetheless apparently gives perfunctory implied explanations as to why certain characters deserved to die and certain others did not.
From having read the reviews, I know which characters live and which die (did I mention that the ship is segregated by class, and that class plays a role in determining who survives?). Without having seen the picture, I cannot say whether the film is racist. Perhaps it is not, under the definition I have articulated above. But there is that nagging issue of Mr. Petersen's organization and its dedication to sensitivity. From reading the reviews, I must say that I do wonder whether he takes his commitment to the organization seriously.
To paraphrase Roger Ebert, whose question I believe I now have answered in long and short form, either the organization, or its patrons, appear to have been the victim of a disservice.
posted by EnterCenter at 12:15 PM
1 Comments:
Interesting site. Useful information. Bookmarked.
»
Post a Comment
<< Home