Concerning the petitions that occurred to remove the film Paradise Now from Oscar consideration because of its subject matter, I agree with the counter-petition, more or less. I believe both the original and counter-petitions amount to no more than a schoolyard fight of “did not – did, too” and should be treated as such.
Everyone has a right to be heard and to give an opinion. By suppressing one’s opinion on any given event, whether real or make believe, is just that – suppression. What gives someone the right to judge another and their beliefs? To tell someone they don’t have the right to exist?
I am of the firm belief that the majority of the people who signed the original petition never actually watched the film themselves. Instead, they took the word of “one side” as the correct version of events. It was a petition meant to inflame the public by giving a personal account centered around the death of a beloved son as well as blaming the bombing of the Twin Towers in New York on the Palestinian people (last I looked, Al-Qaeda did that). Since the petition was meant to be read by a group consisting of mostly Americans it only accounts as inflammatory in its conjecture. Just like a lawyer cross-examining a witness, it doesn't matter if the opposing attorney objects to a statement and the judge sustains, it was still said and heard.
On a completely separate issue, film is considered another form of art, of expression, and for that reason alone would it be considered as a nominee for an Oscar. It was very well made and beautiful. To take it out of contention for an art based award just because of its subject matter would have been blasphemous and completely ignorant.
Judge not, lest ye be judged.
Good point about most of the people signing anti-petition not actually seeing the movie. Sadly, that is usually the case when a group is up in arms over a movie or book.
ReplyDeleteI don't think you are out of line suggesting that some petitioners may never have even viewed the film. Even if they had, there reaction might be reminiscent of Samuel L. Jackson's character's perception after he was shot in "Rules of Engagement". Some of the petitions that I've seen floating around the past few years prey on the fears that have been developed since 2001 (or earlier). People see what they want to see base on fear and ignorance.
ReplyDeleteI too believe that this film should be aloud to speak.. and speak loudly if it wishes. I don't think this film was irresponsible in any way. I thought the film was insightful and provoked good discussion and debate. The protesters should use it to their benefit and not against their cause. It brings the issues to the surface for active discussion. There is always a counterpoint to make-- you just have to sit still long enough to digest it and make it.