Friday, October 17, 2003

Easterbrook Apologizes



Ok. Let's say I buy it. But why would the nominal religious affiliation of studio heads, Christian or otherwise, haev anything to do with anything? Easterbrook writes
I wondered about the consciences of those running Disney and Miramax. Were they Christian? How could a Christian rationalize seeking profits from a movie that glorifies killing as a sport, even as a form of pleasure? I think it's fair to raise faith in this context: In fact I did exactly that one week earlier, when I wrote a column about the movie The Passion asking how we could take Mel Gibson seriously as a professed Christian, when he has participated in numerous movies that glorify violence.


Is is a fair question to ask Mel Gibson about the Letahl Weapons movies because he has come out and pushed a certain set of beliefs, rather incompatible with that of his Lethal Weapons impersonation, to be taken as beliefs he is very serious about. To my knowledge Eisner or Weinstein have never talked about how as Jews they abhor violence. At most they are both Jews inasmuch as Coppola or Scorsese are Italians. Easterbrook does not compare Scorsese's nationality to his religion, why should he do that for Eisner or Weinstein?


The issue here is again the confusion between Jews as a nation and Judaism as a religion. If supposedly educated and well-rounded writer like Greg Easterbrook cannot draw the difference, how can we hope that anyone else, especially intentionally malicious Muslim fundamentalists would?


I think this rift underscores the plight of Armenians. I mean it. If Eisner were Armenian, Easterbrook would never suggest that the violence is improper given Eisner's armenian heritage. And he could not be more wrong.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home