So, yesterday I saw an article* railing against Liam Neeson for being too open minded. In the course of which, the author accuses the Archbishop of Canterbury of being essentially a Fifth Columnist for Islamic jihad. Here's the link:
Pretty mind-boggling, I thought. There's a good case to be made rebutting Neeson,** but of course to do that you'd have to pay attention to what Neeson actually said, as reported in the following piece:
That is, the voice-actor (a devout Catholic) isn't presuming to speak for the author but simply gave his own opinion. It seems an odd thing to get excited about -- I mean, does any F. Scott Fitzgerald scholar worry about what Rbt Redford might say?
--John R.
.........................
* by Ken Blackwell, the Kathleen Harris of the 2004 election
**and also a good one defending his position
2 comments:
I think the manufactured media hysteria over Neeson's comments was hilarious, but I also think his comments were on the level of the moronic nonsense I remember from some college classes I suffered through... the ones where deconstructionism was being applied as as critical tool.
If the author's intent was known, who really cares what bizarre and intentional misreading of a text someone chooses to impose upon it? Neeson's comments should have warranted a shrug and maybe a "There goes another Hollywood idiot," and everyone should have moved on with their day.
(I post about stupid things actors say and do when I'm desperate to write about something at Cinema Steve, but Neeson's comment isn't even worth mocking it's so harmless and goofy.)
Just read Blackwell's piece. Wow. He didn't quote Neeson's comments, and I wonder if he even bothered going back to the source to look at them!
Post a Comment