Zombie Pirate Ninja Monkey

The Bankruptcy of Cultural Relativism

I am not much given to quoting militant feminist left-wing secularists, but when they talk convincingly about equality in terms of freedoms and rights, I am prepared to be impressed.  The excellent Nick Cohen's new blog provided me with just such an opportunity for delight..

Maryam Namazie, militant feminist left-wing secularist Iranian exile, writing after Canadian politicians decided that they should allow Sharia courts in their country, said this of the cultural relativism that inspired the move:

‘It promotes tolerance and respect for so-called minority opinions and beliefs, rather than respect for human beings. Human beings are worthy of the highest respect, but not all opinions and beliefs are worthy of respect and tolerance. There are some who believe in fascism, white supremacy, the inferiority of women. Must they be respected?’

Nick Cohen, discussing this, went on to say that

"Richard J Evans*, professor of modern history at Cambridge, pointed out in Defence of History that if you take the relativist position to its conclusion and believe there’s no such thing as truth and all cultures are equally valid, you have no weapons to fight the Holocaust denier or Ku Klux Klansmen."

The fracturing of the Left provoked by the need for a response to conflict between the liberal West and militant Islamism originally provided me with little more than a sense of Schadenfreude.  What an idiot I was.  In fact, it is very pleasant to be able to agree with people like Cristopher Hitchens and Nick Cohen.  It is a lot easier to feel comfortable alongside them than it is beside the increasingly virulent Tebbit, or the frankly bewildering George W. Bush.

* Richard Evans, the first book of whose continuing trilogy on the Third Reich I first picked up in an attempt to fathom the mystery that my friend Richie "The Flying Hippo" Evans - centre forward for a footie team I used to play in, fellow Morton fan, and rock'n'roll social worker - should be such a dark horse when it came to historiography.

"First Impressions"

Every now and then, I preface a post with something along the lines of "I don't normally use this as a 'what i did today', diary-type thing...", and then proceed to do exactly that.  This is just such a post.

I saw the new film version of Pride and Prejudice at the weekend.  When the other half reads this, it will come as a bit of a surprise to her, as she doesn't know that I did such a thing.  I have certain tastes that do not apply across the entirety of my household, and one of them is for film and TV versions of Miss Austen's works.  Another, not unrelated, is for romantic comedies: I have a remarkably high tolerance for films with John Cusack in them.  This tolerance is not universally shared.  So I watch such things in my own time, when our working and leisure hours do not coincide.

Anyway, I have read reviews of this latest version which express at best mixed opinions about it.  These usually involve unfavourable comparisons of Matthew MacFadyen with Colin Firth who, thanks to the diaries of Ms Jones, has become somewhat confused with the character of Mr Darcy in recent years.  In fact, I found MacFadyen an excellent Darcy.  Normally, Darcy is portrayed in such a way that it is perfectly obvious to the even the most obtuse observer that he is quite taken with Elizabeth, and with Firth, I got the impression at times that Darcy really was just a bit shy.  MacFadyen has Darcy's character come across as genuinely blunt and rude on occasion, and one can see that he really doesn't want to like someone from such an awful family.  The first hints at a weakening resolve are filmed with a wonderful lightness of touch - quite literally on one occasion - and one sees real expenditure of effort on his part

There are weaknesses: a few too many additions to the original text which seem to be added for purely comedic value.  While this worked - and was probably wholly necessary - in Jackson's reworkings of the Lord of the Rings, the idea that Pride and Prejudice needed some sort of an injection of humour is a little like Spielberg deciding that Schindler's List wouldn't be properly horrifying unless he added some extra, wholly fictional violence.

Also, if you are going to make Kiera Knightley a believable Elisabeth, then you need someone spectacular to play her distinctly prettier sister Jane.  Talulah Riley is undoubtedly very pretty, but a degree of suspension of disbelief is needed regarding why she is everybody's consistent first choice when she is competing with the sheer presence of Knightley.

Anyway, mock or scorn if you will, but I preferred this Pride and Prejudice not just to the 1995 mini-series, but also to the 1940 Olivier/Garson version.