Thread: Movies and TV Movies
View Single Post
Old 08-12-2010, 05:56 PM   #5608
Reaper16 Reaper16 is offline
Eat/Sleep/Procrastinate/Repeat
 
Reaper16's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Dystopia
Casino cash: $10017397
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Brooklyn View Post
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.

As I'm sure you know, the film is based on true events. In real life Sarsgaard's character was Jewish. It's not racism or antisemitism, it's a fact of life. They didn't choose to make the character Jewish to make some point - to propagate hateful sentiments or anti-semitic messages. If a black man robbed a 7-11, would you call the nightly news racist for reporting that a black man robed a 7-11. If a white man murdered his wife and kids would you call the news racist or bigoted for reporting that a white man murdered his wife and kids?

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? Would you rather they change or ignore these facts of time and place? Is it wrong to include them in a period film based on actual events? If the make a movie about OJ Simpson should they gloss over the murder trial and forget to mention that he got busted for robbery and kidnapping in Las Vegas because some people might find it racist?

There are terrible people doing terrible things in all walks of life. All shapes, sizes, sexes, races and classes of people do shitty things. The opposite is also true. All shapes, sizes, sexes, races and classes of people do wonderful, glorious, heroic things. By depicting one you are negating the other. By telling one story you are not surrendering all others.

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!

The same is true of An Education. It is dealing with certain themes, and certain character ideals, but as far as I can tell the artists involved are in no way condoning such attitudes and behaviors. The movie is not advocating antisemitism. The movie is not hateful. The film is not in agreement with it's more ignorant characters.

Is Crash a hateful film? Is Schindler's List? Is Roots?

Just because a character behaves a certain way - a way that is true to life, that is based in fact - does not mean that the film advocates that behavior. If that were the case, then I suppose The Silence Of The Lambs is racist against Caucasians because it portrays all middle-aged white men as serial killers.
I'm not going to address the lecture because it is both condescending and irrelevant to my concerns with the film. The film, BTW, changed a lot of material from the memoir it is based on, so the "integrity of the book" defense doesn't hold water. I am also completely unconcerned with what the filmmakers intended to do. Caring about that is what's known as the Intentional Fallacy. What matters is what the film actually is.

So, looking solely at the film itself, I can't agree with you that the film isn't in agreement with its hate. Every ignorant comment made about the Jewish people as a whole in that film was fully justified when looking at Sarsgaard's character. Those ignorant characters looked pretty damn prophetic by the end of the film. He was a terrible person - a thief, a racist, a creep - who justified his behavior with his Jewness. He had numerous lines about Jewish behavior in which he used the royal "We," making him a representative for the entier Jewish people. What's worse is that there isn't a need in the film to have the character be 1.) Jewish and 2.) a ridiculous cornucopia of harmful stereotypes at that. The ONLY justification for his behavior was that he was Jewish. Of course there are terrible people of all races and cultures. No one is terrible simply because their race is inherently terrible - which is exactly what the film is suggesting, intentionally or not. I can't see how that doesn't make the film agree with its characters. Maybe you can help me understand how with another civics lesson.

I don't understand your last paragraph, either. There are no cultural stereotypes that portray the average middle-aged white man as a serial killer. There ARE old, pervasive cultural sterotypes that say the average Jewish man is exactly how Sarsgaard's character is.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Delano View Post
Reaper16's taste in beer, music, and literature are unmatched on this message board.
Posted via Mobile Device
Posts: 33,369
Reaper16 has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.Reaper16 has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.Reaper16 has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.Reaper16 has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.Reaper16 has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.Reaper16 has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.Reaper16 has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.Reaper16 has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.Reaper16 has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.Reaper16 has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.Reaper16 has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.