SAY IT AIN'T SO, TMQ!: A well-known political commentator who's semi-employed by ESPN has made some controversial comments that may be construed as offensive by a certain minority group. Rush Limbaugh? Nope, this time it's Tuesday Morning Quarterback Gregg Easterbrook, who is being accused of anti-Semitism for comments he's made on his New Republic blog.
In the midst of an evisceration of "Kill Bill" and Quentin Tarantino in general, TMQ has this to say:
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.
Just like with Limbaugh, my judgment is "no" on the anti-Semitism count and "yes" on the charges of being both stupid and completely wrong. But unlike with Limbaugh, who I've never had that much respect for in the first place, Gregg Easterbrook is legitimately a genius, and one with pretty strong grasp on politics, sports, and pop culture, so I can't help but be disappointed that something like this would come from him.
First of all, and maybe it's 'cause he has kids, but Easterbrook seems to be on a "movie violence is always bad" kick, one with which I totally disagree- he could make all the same arguments about "The Godfather" or "The Sopranos" (minus the Holocaust stuff and substituting "Italian" for "Jewish") and would be just as wrong. Secondly, while TMQ doesn't share whether or not he's actually seen the new QT film, but if he did he completely misunderstood it: "Kill Bill" has nothing whatsoever to do with "killing the innocent"- it's a revenge tale, about a women getting back at the people who tried to kill her, put her in a coma, and ended her pregnancy. Cartoonish as the violence in the movie is, it's not "meaningless," and is in fact consistent with a dramatic tradition that goes back at least to Shakespeare.
As for the Jewish charge? Easterbrook here is playing with ancient stereotypes that go back nearly a century but are clearly no longer true- Hollywood hasn't been "run by the Jewish moguls" since multinational conglomerates bought all the studios in the mid-'80s. It's a mystery why he singles out Weinstein and/or Eisner; that every Jew in Hollywood is bound because of the Holocaust to never use violence in any of their movies, I can think of a lot of great movies and a lot of great careers that never would've happened. But then again, the sort of violence in Tarantino's movies is based on that of samurai, kung-fu, gangster, blaxploitation, and other genres- none of which have anything to do with the killing of innocents, and have even less to do with the Holocaust. And the "worship money above all else" part? That's just gratuitous.
Then again, I've heard most of these arguments made against Spielberg for as long as I can remember; is that what Gregg really means?
I sincerely hope that Easterbrook will see the error of his ways and go back to talking about things that he actually knows about, and I really hope ESPN doesn't buckle down from the pressure and fire him from his TMQ gig. But come on Gregg- you're better than this!