Thursday, March 15, 2012
Intellectuals need not apply
Every four years I’m woefully reminded that in American politics intellect is no asset; rather, it is an anathema, especially to presidency. In popular view, intellect smacks of elitism, and elitism is undemocratic. In fact, intellectuals are likely to be ridiculed. The president needs not think but must have an ability to sway the public in one direction or another. The real political power, therefore, resides elsewhere, probably in the Congress, whose members are also elected on their capacity to persuade. In America, the president does not rule; she or he only leads by hook or by crook.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Speaking of intellectuals, this is a fitting space to note that "Footnote" is a marvel, a film that works on multiple levels: a father-son conflict, a critique of the emptiness of Talmudic scholarship when its practitioners overlook the very thing their scholarship is ultimately about (i.e., the Torah and its exhortations to lead an ethical life), and one of the few movies that successfully makes--as John Simon once said--thought visible. (He used that phrase to condemn the film version of "The Paper Chase" for failing to do just that, an evaluation I don't share.)
ReplyDeleteWithout giving anything away, I'll add that it's a great example of how a smart filmmaker marries form and content and uses subjective cinema wisely; when the story focuses on the father, we see the world the way he does: fractionated, without an appreciation for the big picture.
You don't have to know anything about the Talmud or Judaism to appreciate the richness of "Footnote."
Thank you for this astute observation. I was going to write a piece on this film but now (04.10.12) I won't. In the April 16 New Yorker, just received, David Denby (unknowingly) expands on your comment.
ReplyDelete