Well, I see Roger Simon already took the paddle to Gregg Easterbrook for the latter's odd (and arguably anti-Semitic) comments about "Jewish movie executives" Michael Eisner and Harvey Weinstein and their willingness to promote violent film fare, such as Quentin Tarantino's new Kill Bill.
After describing Tarantino's work as "pure junk" and "shabby depictions of slaughter as a form of pleasure," Easterbrook wrote:
Set aside what it says about Hollywood that today even Disney thinks what the public needs is ever-more-graphic depictions of killing the innocent as cool amusement. Disney's CEO, Michael Eisner, is Jewish; the chief of Miramax, Harvey Weinstein, is Jewish. Yes, there are plenty of Christian and other Hollywood executives who worship money above all else, promoting for profit the adulation of violence. Does that make it right for Jewish executives to worship money above all else, by promoting for profit the adulation of violence? Recent European history alone ought to cause Jewish executives to experience second thoughts about glorifying the killing of the helpless as a fun lifestyle choice. But history is hardly the only concern. Films made in Hollywood are now shown all over the world, to audiences that may not understand the dialogue or even look at the subtitles, but can't possibly miss the message--now Disney's message--that hearing the screams of the innocent is a really fun way to express yourself.
I find this reasoning incomprehensible and indefensible. It is inappropriate to single out these two gentlemen - solely on the basis of their religious faith - and to suggest that they should somehow "know better." After all, this year has seen the video game violence of Matrix Reloaded, which become the highest-grossing R-rated film of all time. Another film, the recently released Once Upon a Time in Mexico, also featured a number of scenes of stylized violence. What exempts these films, and their filmmakers, from Easterbrook's broad brush?
.jpg?t=20130517094513)
Article comments
1 - Eric Olsen
Fine job Bill - to use Easterbrook's new favorite word, it's preposterous to single out Tarantino, whose movies until now (I haven't seen Kill Bill) are as much about the consequences of violence and dishonesty as they are about anything, but even more so to select for tarring this pair of execs because they happen to be Jewish (hardly unusual in Hollywood - funny he didn't bring up the Gay Mafia) and affiliated with Tarantino.
Using Gregg's (one fucking "g" should be enough) preposterous logic, shouldn't the Italian-American Tarantino know better than to exploit violence since who would know better the wages of violence than those who have suffered disproportionately from the violence of the italian-American Mafia?
Lastly, Easterbrook is free to decide for himself that Tarantino is shit, but what kind of dead-and-bloated hubris would put him in the position of making this decision-as-fact for the world?
It couldn't possibly be that The Two Jews (and millions of film-goers) actually think Tarantino's movies have artistic merit - it can only be that they are money-grubbing Shylocks who know Tarantino is shit just as well as Gregggggy does and are flogging his work to the world for the sole purpose of reaping illegitimate profits.
Asshole.
2 - Phillip Winn
One thought: Is Easterbrook Jewish? I certainly feel more free to criticize fellow Christians on certain issues than I do people at large, and I wonder if Easterbrook might feel the same way about his religion.
Never mind. While previewing, I realized that I had seen an Easterbrook column on The Passion, and he proclaims Christianity there. Weird.