- Country singer Tim McGraw not sorry for slapping female fan: ‘Things happen’
- Iraq vet cited for owning 14 therapeutic pet ducks
- White House takes credit for drop in unaccompanied children at border
- International crises be damned, Obama’s fundraising trip must go on
- Friend of bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev found guilty of impeding probe
- Train with MH17 plane crash bodies leaves rebel town in Ukraine
- Half of Colorado voters are OK with Hobby Lobby decision, poll shows
- HIV-killing condom to soon hit shelves in Australia
- Estonia pulls plug on Steven Seagal over praise for Putin
- Lawyer: Pelvic exam pics cost Hopkins $190 million
True and false martyrs to free expression
Question of the Day
On HBO’s “Real Time with Bill Maher,” filmmaker Julian Schnabel said his controversial new feature “Miral” “actually shows Palestinians how we wish they would be: peaceful.”
Dear reader, I think Mr. Schnabel has stumbled upon a ritual that could prove even more transcendentally beneficial than yoga meditation.
Wouldn’t it be heartening to see a movie that limns a democratic post-Tiananmen China? Or 19th-century American whites coexisting peacefully and prosperously with both Indians and free blacks? Or Boston Red Sox fans embracing those of the New York Yankees? And savor that “actually”: Mr. Schnabel seems to think that what he more or less admits is wishful thinking is an act of courage.
He dares to hope! We’d better stick with yoga.
Because Mr. Schnabel’s filmic prescription seems little better than a “Visualize World Peace” bumper sticker.
Before dismissing what follows as some hawkish-militaristic-neocon-Likudnik screed, hear these disclaimers: Mr. Schnabel’s last feature film, Oscar-nominated “The Diving Bell and the Butterfly,” was a visual masterpiece. Further, filmmakers have neither an ethical nor artistic responsibility to include point-counterpoint “balance” in any story they wish to tell. And widening one’s “circle of compassion” is indeed a useful exercise of moral imagination.
Mr. Schnabel’s belief that his latest film is an attempt to renew a peaceful dialogue is apparently sincere. He told London’s Guardian newspaper last October: “If Arab people see a Jewish person can do this, they might think, ‘Maybe there’s somebody on the other side we can talk to.’” However: Mr. Schnabel’s self-pitying campaign of false martyrdom in the wake of nearly universally negative reviews of “Miral” is still an utter sham.
For the uninitiated, “Miral,” based on a heavily autobiographical work of fiction by Mr. Schnabel’s current girlfriend, Rula Jebreal, looks at Israeli treatment of Palestinians through the eyes of, well, Palestinians.
In the interest of full disclosure, this columnist is among the uninitiated: I haven’t seen the movie. Obviously, I can have no beef — yet — with its “one-sidedness,” a feeling that has registered with organizations like the American Jewish Committee, or with its supposed aesthetic failures. (A.O. Scott of the New York Times, for instance, saluted “Miral” for its good intentions and “humanism,” but nonetheless found it “strained,” “superficial” and comparable at times to an “epic perfume commercial.”)
I can only wince at what I have actually seen: namely, Mr. Schnabel’s fatheaded preening across the pages of newspapers and on shows like Mr. Maher’s “Real Time.” In this newspaper, Mr. Schnabel hinted, all too familiarly, at a vast conspiracy of Zionism in the upper echelons of the international media: Critics who’ve liked “Miral” privately have feared saying so publicly because they “don’t want to get fired from their jobs,” he told this paper. And if they’re not feeling pressured from above, unfriendly critics must be harboring “subliminal” biases that prevent them from liking a sympathetic portrayal of Palestinians.
Mr. Schnabel is himself Jewish, and so enjoys insulation from the charge of anti-Semitism.
But that doesn’t mitigate the ugliness — the sheer preposterousness — of his suspicions.
No less a paragon of mainstream liberal Hollywood and tolerant J Street Jewishness than Steven Spielberg was responsible for the film “Munich” (2005), which posited, in democratic, internationally recognized Israel’s conflict with Palestinian terrorists dedicated to its destruction, a neatly symmetrical, morally equivalent cycle of violence that midwifed the Sept. 11 attacks.
And Israel’s native film industry itself has exported a number of vehicles of national self-reflection (usually obliquely, as in 2002’s “Broken Wings” and in 2004’s “Walk on Water,” but sometimes head-on, as in 2008’s “Lemon Tree”).
Perhaps owing to his comprehensive distaste for all religion, even the left-leaning Mr. Maher noted in passing on his show the unlikelihood that we’ll be seeing anytime soon a Palestinian-produced film told from Israelis’ point of view.
© Copyright 2014 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
About the Author
TWT Video Picks
U.S. appetite for drugs begets violence migrants are fleeing
- IRS seeks help destroying another 3,200 computer hard drives
- Jewish woman booted from JetBlue flight over fight with Palestinian
- Edward Snowden to work with Russia on anti-spy technology
- Rihanna, Dwight Howard delete #FreePalestine tweets
- YOUNG: A sinking presidency, deeper after November?
- PRUDEN: A deadly enemy within exacerbating immigration crisis
- MERRY: Handicaps in Hillary's way
- Driver who killed teen on bike sues family for $1.3 million
- Bill Maher blames Hamas for Gaza violence: 'Do you really expect the Israelis not to retaliate?'
- HUMPHRIES: 'Hes the Worst President in 70 Years'
Obama's biggest White House 'fails'
Celebrities turned politicians
Athletes turned actors
20 gadgets that changed the world
Fighting in Iraq