|
Wednesday Generalizing everything I just make short comments on these two very long articles, with respect to Mr. Pakravan's opinions. I think you have a terrible tendency to generalize everything from politics to cinema as if you had the solution to all the problems of the Middle East. In your first article: "Imperialism is alive", correct me if I have mis-interpreted your views, but globally you blame filmakers for being irresponsible when it comes to evaluating the impact their work can have on the society. You write:"I would like to argue that it is the responsibility of the artist to see the impact of his/her actions." I totally disagree with you on this point. Artists are creators, and by definition are subjective. What you advocate through your examples such as Spielberg's so-called racism, is highly exaggerated. You mention an innocent film like "back to the future" where the hero Michael J. Fox travels through time only by coincidence and realizes that he can actually change the course of events in his own future (His mother being an alcoholic, and father a coward who accepts to be bullied by his ex-classmate), and eventually succeeds. True in the course at some point in the plot Libyan terrorists appear. The film was shot in the 80's. Let me remind you that in those days Libya was accused of terrorist acts. So was the P.L.O, but I won't get into this debate, because it places us on an entirely different level. Arafat since the Oslo agreement has tried to seek peace with Israel, but things took a different turn with the successive assassinations of Rabin for example not to mention Sharons provocations in the occupied territories. I will come on this subject in regard to your second article. Let's get back to your first article where you take Spielberg and Hollywood as the instrument of Jewish Propaganda, even though "Back to the Future" was directed by Robert Zemekis who later directed "Forrest Gump" and American History does not appear in its most glorified aspect. Hollywood is far from being a Jewish monopoly. Both Spielberg and Lucas were independent filmmakers from the start and conquered Hollywood through their immense talent. Sure some Hollywood films have could be qualified as racist such as "The Birth of A Nation" which I mentioned in my first article to The Iranian ["Persia?"]. Filmmakers and artists have been the instrument of Government propaganda, such as Leni Riefenstahl who glorified the Olympic Games of 1936 in her film "Les Dieux du Stade". Which didn't stop Jesse Owens a black American to humiliate the German runners, by winning the Gold medals in all the competitions to such an extent that Adolf Hitler refused to shake hands with him. Leni Riefenstahl was unfortunate to be a talented filmmaker in a totalitarian regime and had to cope with the situation. She later continued an extraordinary career as a photographer and was particularly interested in ethnology and African tribes. I do not claim that she was not indirectly responsible for making her films, but she certainly cannot be blamed for being where she was at the time the events took place. Had she been aware of the atrocities committed in the concentration camps, which I doubt she was, maybe she wouldn't have made the film. It is true that an artist should have a conscience and try to be aware of the impact of his /her work on society, but honestly how can anyone claim to detain the absolute solutions to the problems of the world. Albert Einstein wrote to the president Roosevelt of the United States on the Dangerous consequences of works done in the field of Nuclear fission, the result was that the American government launched the Manhatten Project. To be frank what irritates me in your first article is not so much the fact that you are complaining of a lack of human consciensness in regard to crimes being committed in Bosnia for example or other ethnic groups due to a lack of Foreign Western intervention, but to attack actors or directors making movies. In an action film you cannot blame George Clooney for insulting Iranians, or Harrison Ford ( You didn't mention him I know ) for Shooting an Egyptian who wants to show off his swashbuckling talents when his smarter opponent has a Gun and shoots him. The interesting anecdote regarding this particular scene in "The adventures of the Lost Ark" is that Spielberg who here directed the film unlike "Back to the future" is that Harrison ford had an indigestion due to a food poisoning and the scene was totally improvised, I must admit its a Gem of a scene for a comic adventure movie. Your vehement attacks on American movies who intentionally or not attack racial groups take examples which in my opinion are set out of context, and you seem to lack to take films for what they are : MOVIES. I suggest you to read Peter Bogdanovitch's book "I Orson Welles". Welles was a victim, of Hollywood probably even intentionally because he was too profound for his time. In order to make his films most of which are considered as great masterpieces, he had to accept humiliating roles, play cameo roles etc. Because Hollywood Studios closed him the doors after Citizen Kane was a disaster at the Box Office. The film is studied in every film school in the world as an example of what a filmmaker can do when he has total control on his work. Unlike other Art forms a film is made in collaboration with other people, actors , producers, technicians, the result often surprises the film-maker himself. I consider that a certain degree of censorship is necessary, but not by destroying a film. What I call a certain degree of censorship is when a film can be too harsh, too violent for a certain younger public. A film like Kubricks "Clockword Orange" which I personally dislike no-matter how much some movie-goers may consider as a masterpiece, is not a movie to be shown at primetime or allowed to be seen by young viewers. On the other hand "The paths of Glory" also made by Kubrick which was censored in France until the late 1970's because it was a cruel and quite objective film on the crimes committed by French generals during World War I, who to avoid being blamed for their own mistakes, preferred to take a group of innocent soldiers and falsely accuse them of desertion. As Kirk Douglas puts it in his diaries, "A Ragmans son" the film had to be shot in Germany, and was released everywhere except in France. He also added, I like military films as long as they are ant-military. I couldn't agree more, he attacks not the army which unfortunately is for any country's security but the notion of War in what it has as grotesque, and absurd. Today the film is often shown on French television and movie-theaters, and the French are starting to look more critically at their past than they ever did before through movies. Bertrand Tavernier is not very tender in "Captain Conan" with the French soldiers attitude during the First World War, Luc Besson with "Joan of Arc" made a film which isn't flattering one of France's Biggest Icons, also regarding the fact that She is a symbol, in my opinion falsely for French extremists like Jean-Marie Le Pen and his Nationalist Front movement. I would also want to take another example at the risk of shocking some of our compatriots, let's take the film "Not without my Daughter" based on the novel of the same name. We perfectly know the shock the film caused, especially in the context in which it came out. Betty Mahmoody an American had the bad luck of falling in love with an Iranian who mistreated her after returning to Iran. The film was also and I can imagine purposely, broadcasted on French television channel M6, during the World Cup, just before the Match between Iran and Germany. This caused an outrage from player Azizi, who threatened that Iran would not participate in the next match. After a diplomatic excuse everyone forgot about it and Iran played the match and lost. I can understand the outrage caused by this film, and most probably the people who made the film knew that it would be a source of controversy. Now objectively speaking the film is nothing of a masterpiece, it is just the story of a woman whose personal life has been entangled with the turmoils of Iranian history. She happened to come to Iran during the worst periods in its history when the country was at war with Iraq. In addition she discovers that her husbands family is extremely religious, and cultural differences shock her. I am half Iranian, my parents love each other and unlike Betty Mahmoody, their has not been any form of violence exerted by my Iranian father on my French mother, thank God. Nevertheless I knew couples especially Iranians married to Americans who after the revolution, either willingly or defiantly ended by humiliating their own wives and threatening them a little bit as in Betty Mahmoody's case. The natural response is to say OK such mis-treatments are common in any society. In Belgium a Guy was been accused of Pedophilia, which proved to implicate ministers and the whole Belgian Judicial institution accused of corruption. So I guess that means all Belgian people are sexual perverts ! But back to the movie, If one watches it carefully and yes it is very different from the book. Iranians are not at all accused as a whole she even manages to run away with the help of Iranians who happen to suffer in Iran. The film to be honest reminded me of many films made by American filmmakers during the Cold War on east-European dissidents who tried to flee their country and Gain the West, with all the subtle propaganda of the time. Nevertheless it was a Cold War. If we have to follow Mr. Pakravans logic then no one can anymore make movies. Let's burn Hitchcock's films because they are an apology of murder and crime, when in fact it is a masterful work on suspense in Cinema. Let's burn Roland Emmerich's film "The Patriot" because he makes fun of the British, and believe me in that film the British villains are practically described as Nazi's. And why not burn Mohsen Makhbaalbafs films shot during his revolutionary times simply because we disagree with his political views. Believe me filmmakers, have a lot to put up with let the critics kill or destroy them, not the politicians. As far as your second article, "Let us count the crimes", I perfectly understand your anger at the Jewish community in general for confusing their loyalty to their religion and their loyalty to Israel. However even if It clearly appears that you are not a racist, I dislike your attitude in wanting to categorize people like you categorize films. Such categorizations lead to creating ideological arguments when you yourself are trying to denounce Zionism as an ideology in itself. Their is no immediate global solution to the problems of the Middle East, Each country has its individuality, be it a monarchy or a republic. The common denominator is that it is a region where throughout its long history their has been conflict and wars. Why is the West and the world in general has always been concerned by what is going on in the Middle East beyond economic and strategic concerns, because It is the region where all three Great religions of the world were born. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Israel should take into account that it is not the only nation who deserves to exist. The problem of Jerusalem's status, the problem of water distribution, the coexistence of Jews with the Arabs and vice-versa all have been subject to negotiations. The Western Democracies Which include Europe and America have a historical responsibility in regard to the Middle East Conflict and a duty to give more power to the United Nations, in order to force the give support to Arafat in order to have the power to install a strong and independent government capable of controlling Palestinian extremists, and To force the actual Israeli government to accept stop provocations which will do no good to the current situation in the Middle East. Just wanted to reassure you that I am not a Jew and therefore like you Mr. Pakravan I look at the current situation as an outsider. I do not claim I am right, but I believe one must avoid generalizations, Regards,
|
|
|
Web design by BTC Consultants
Internet server Global Publishing Group