Quote:
Originally Posted by Reaper16
It isn't absurd. Not at all. You've apparently never heard of the "wandering Jew" stereotype popularized by Nazi propaganda film: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Eternal_Jew
Not only is explicit mention made of Peter Sarsgaard's character as a Jew (with ostensibly no real impact on the plot) but specifically a wandering Jew. Sarsgaard's character is morally detestable - he lasciviously goes around and seduces proper young women and ruins them. He corrupts British girls and acts as a sort of social Svengali for them. He makes money in reprehensible ways: obtaining valuable works of art from dying or dead or elderly people, corrupting property values by manipulating both aspirant middle class blacks and the phenomenon of white flight, etc. He's always using this royal 'We' (which obviously refers to the Jewish people) to justify his behavior. There are plenty of examples that others have seen; one site review talks about the inability for Sarsgaard to be sexy in seduction, for example. Then, of course, there is the undeniably anti-Semetic headmistress of Mulligan's school. Mulligan tries to defend her Jew but is shot down with a line about Jesus being a Jew is a fiction. The film proceeds to justify that anti-Semetic screed by making Sarsgaard's character even less appealing that he already was; he is revealed to be cheating on his wife. Sarsgaard's character essentially goes through every terrible, racist stereotype against Jews that there is.
What you are doing right now is the equivalent of calling absurd the idea of a film that depicts black people as monkey-behaving, gang-raping, watermelon-eating, too-dumb-to-work-anything-except-a-cotton-field being a racist film. |
That is absolutely not what I am doing. Not at all.
The film certainly deals with anti-semitic themes, but that does not make the movie hateful. Many of the film's characters are ignorant and racist, but that doesn't make the film so.
Hornby has talked openly about how he struggled with the idea of changing the truth. There was talk of changing Sarsgaard's character so that he wasn't Jewish. Ultimately, it was decided that changing the facts would be more offensive and insulting to the audience and to the Jewish community. This was even discussed with the films original director - a Jew. It's a period film. At that point in British history antisemitism was prevalent. Would you rather they sugarcoat the truth?
I'm sorry if the movie made you uncomfortable. If you dislike the movie because of it's themes, I understand and I can't blame you for that. They are tough themes. But that's the same reason why I don't recommend
Happiness to everyone. The movie portrays a pedophile in a human, (at times even) compassionate light. Does that mean the film is advocating pedophilia? Absolutely not!