33481, Why pick on Peter Jackson?|
Posted by te_pakeha, Sun Dec-18-05 12:33 AM
LoTR was a mythological story for England, hence the main protagonists are all fair skinned. It's not meant to reflect the early to mid 20th century at all. So read all ya want into it, but none of it I think was intended at all. Intention is the key too, otherwise perhaps we (And I mean everyone) should shut down all forms of art, because everything can have something offensive/demeaning/insulting etc... read into it (and I'm not just talking racism).
King Kong? I didn't see an ape bowing down to a "white bitch", maybe the US release is different to the overseas one or something? It is a remake from a fan, whom I'm sure has never really interpreted it as white supremicist propoganda; people at the theatre I saw were crying when Kong died, they certainly weren't cheering the might of the white man eh.
But why Peter Jackson specifically? Is it some anti-kiwi manifestation that you need to pin on someone? I read from this post is that any movie in which darkness is at all implied to be bad is inherently racist, which, without a great leap, can be taken to mean that anybody afraid of the dark is either a) racist, or b) self-loathing, depending upon their skin colour. It's easy enough to confuse the darkness/evil thing with the darkness/black/racism thing, and perhaps most of y'all are just angry kids or something, but frankly I don't get it. But why Jackson in particular, and for movies for which the screenplays were adapted ones, rather than originals?
Movie-makers in New Zealand seem to have always come from a left-leaning and pretty fair-minded tradition; indeed most of the most scathing attacks on our own , often buried racism have come from our film-makers, of whom Jackson is an esteemed member. Y'all should remember that while discrimination is a problem in all countries, the situations are different, just because you perceive things one way in the US doesn't make it universal.