.
The New York Times, the Washington Post really hated the new movie The Stoning of Soraya M., which depicts sexist injustice under Islamic Sharia law in Iran. Post critic Jan Stuart complained Friday:Iranian American director Cyrus Nowrasteh, co-writing with wife Betsy Giffen Nowrasteh, has amplified the basic elements of Soraya's story into the worst kind of exploitive Hollywood melodrama, presented under the virtuous guise of moral outrage.
From there, Stuart then condemned how the filmmakers had a reputation for "inflating" historical events like 9/11.
What, precisely, does that mean? How do you "inflate" historical events like 9/11?
Would the Post accuse a filmmaker of "inflating" the Holocaust for moral outrage? Or the killing of gay man Matthew Shepard, who many activists quickly compared to Jesus? The political ideology of the critic is obvious, and drowns out any aesthetic judgment they might offer.
What the Post critic seems to imply is Westeners shouldn't be "rabid" in feeling any moral superiority to Islamic justice, and that the audience should feel dirty, not morally outraged, for taking in the film.
READ MORE
Monday, June 29, 2009
Anti-Stoning Filmmakers Bashed for 'Inflating' of 9/11
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment