Why is everybody doing it wrong?

So. Let’s just say, for example that you wear a clown suit all day. You wear this clown suit because you have a deeply held belief that in the beginning of time the all-knowing Bongo squirted the heavens from his holy plastic flower water pistol, and humanity came into being when the all-knowing Bongo threw the sacred custard pie. You absolutely have the right to hold that belief close to your heart and wear that clown suit. I have a right that is equal to that however. I have a right to find your belief ridiculous. And I have a right to say so. I have a right to point out the existence of the all-knowing Bongo flies in the face of all known science, logic and reason. I have the right to publish my opinion on your belief where I want, be it on a blog like this one that almost nobody reads, or in a satirical magazine sold somewhere in Europe.

There is something I don’t have the right to do. I don’t have the right to make personal attacks on you because of your belief in the all-knowing Bongo. I have no right to desecrate the place where you pray by re-enacting the hallowed step ladder routine. I have no right to curtail your rights in any way or see you in any way other than a fellow human because of your religious beliefs. Your religious beliefs, however, are very different. They are nothing but fair game. There is no creator myth that I do not find inherently nonsensical, be it the all-knowing Bongo, or the stories that sit at the heart of Christianity, Islam or Scientology, or any other religion that purports to know how everything we know and are came to be. That doesn’t mean I can’t find you to be a complex and brilliant human in spite not sharing in your belief. In the words of Tyler Durden, you’re not your fucking khakis. Nor are you your religious belief. It’s not a difficult thing to recognise. And yet, our insistence on putting people into ready-made boxes will never cease.

But. And it’s a big but. There is nothing, absolutely nothing that gives you the right to murder, least of all that preposterous religious belief of yours. There are times when it is possible to see the reasons behind murder – to understand, although not excuse, the reasons. And then there are times when it is not. Whatever is it that makes a person think that a death sentence is an appropriate response to drawing a cartoon that takes the piss out of their religion? It’s like those times when a kid responds to an argument they know they’re losing by completely over-reacting; screaming, hitting, knocking shit over. That’s what they are. Children in adult’s bodies who, having never learned the life skills of empathy and debate, have heard something they don’t like and happen to have a lot of guns.

That’s the really poisonous thing about religion. When looking at it in any depth, sooner or later you have to come face to face with the fact that the whole thing comes crashing down if you don’t force yourself to believe something that is simply so illogical, so damn unlikely, with nothing in the way of observable proof, that all you can do is blindly have faith in something that is almost certainly untrue. I can’t begin to imagine how difficult it must be living with that impossible paradox forming the heart of how I define myself. Of course, I don’t imagine it would cause me to walk into a school and start shooting children like those rotting pustules of cat sick. It feels like the Spanish Inquisition might have if they all had automatic weapons.

I recognise that religion isn’t the cause of all wars, merely the excuse, that if it didn’t exist we’d find some other thing to justify all the despicable things we get up to, but I do fucking despise the way it’s used by the mindless faithful to commit these terrible crimes. And then what do we do? We use it as an excuse to persecute members of the same religion who had nothing to with these atrocities. Yesterday was Holocaust Memorial Day. It might seem a little extreme to suggest that the current way in which people of a certain faith are casually discriminated against by too many people in this country, given a veil of credibility by a lying, fetid press, because of some acts of violent cowardice by other shit munching fuck farts in the name of that same religion could lead to something as horrifying as a holocaust, but the more you learn about the one that took place in Germany during WWII, the more you see that casual discrimination is exactly how it started. It’s the thin end of the wedge, and it pays to remember that.

People are people, whatever else they may be, whatever box they’re put in, whatever label they’re given because of their colour, gender, age, sexuality or faith. Forgetting that puts you on a very slippery slope that ends nowhere good.

When is a holocaust film not a holocaust film?

When it is Life is Beautiful. It was recently Holocaust Memorial Day (HMD). Firstly, it's staggering to me that such a day is even required, that such a blot on our collective memory would ever be in danger of being forgotten. Unfortunately, people and groups of all nations, races and colours prove that it most certainly is required, and they prove it every day - from Dick Griffin (copyright for that joke: that lad on Question Time that once) denying it even happened, to jihad-launching fucktards who would quite happily wipe out an entire group of people for one lame-ass reason or another.

A friend of mine (@kevupnorth, for those on Twitter) is a staunch supporter and spreader-of-the-word regarding HMD, and his talk of it this year reminded me of a conversation on a Facebook thread about HMD last year, where I revealed my dislike for Roberto Benigni's crock of whimsical shite. @kevupnorth wondered if I disliked holocaust films. Well, no, although perhaps 'like' is the wrong word. Life is Beautiful isn't a holocaust film I replied, but before I could explain myself fully, someone else on the thread appeared to be quite offended by my apparent lack of respect for holocaust victims, as seemingly evidenced by my criticism of the film. I came close to both apologising and arguing on the thread, but in the end I stopped commenting and complained about her on Twitter. Not the most mature reaction, but then I'm not the most mature person (see use of the not real word 'fucktards' above). She may have had a point about the thread being about HMD and that perhaps it wasn't the place for this type of conversation, but I think she assumed a lack of respect for the dead on my part because I dared criticise a film supposedly beyond criticism. She wasn't alone in disagreeing - everyone else on the thread loved it, but she was the one who got offended by a simple opinion. I looked like a dick on that thread forever more, not being able to explain my 'not a holocaust film' comment. Well no more.

Life is Beautiful is average at best. The writing is average, the plot is whimsical wish-fulfilment hogwash and the cinematography and use of light and colour is uninspired. It is mistaken for a holocaust film because it is set during the holocaust, and for that reason it fooled the Academy (not a hard thing to do) and is held up as untouchable, because to criticise it, as I found, is to show disrespect. Bullshit. The holocaust is a setting that is completely interchangeable - it could have been set during any number of historical or imagined tragedies and just as easily told the same story. The holocaust was chosen as the setting because it is the most readily identifiable worst period of our recent history and is more likely to garner an emotional response from the viewer, which, I would argue, shows Benigni being slightly disrespectful as opposed to his critics.

There is an argument (and quite a strong one, granted) that Benigni's father being a prisoner of the Nazis qualified the director to set his story during this particular time of hardship. However, the film is not about the holocaust and I still think the setting was chosen to heighten the emotional impact of the story, rather than starting with the setting and then weaving the plot around it. I could be (hell, I probably am) all kinds of wrong, but hey, that's what blogs are for - for people who are wrong to continue to drone on as if they are right. Just ask James Delingpole.

Consider in contrast an actual holocaust film (the holocaust film), Schindler's List. This is a portrayal of the events (although there is certainly some artistic license taken) that took place during the period. It could not have been set during any other historical period. In this case the holocaust is the event that is shown using the story as the backdrop, rather than placing a fictional story within that setting. That is the crucial difference and that is why Life is Beautiful has no business parading itself as a holocaust film. It attempts to convince you of the true beauty of the human spirit, to give you a happy ending and to convince you that life really is beautiful; none of these things have a place in a holocaust film. Life during the holocaust was not beautiful. It could have and should have been set against an entirely imaginary time and place. Schindler's List is unrelenting in its purpose, which is to force you to witness the events as they were and, like HMD, to ensure you never forget by indelibly burning into your memory the horror of humanity at its ugliest. Never has a brief flash of colour (the red coat) been so utterly wrenching to see, and his ability to break your heart so completely with such a simple device is why Schindler's List will forever remain Spielberg's masterpiece and it's also why he's a better director than Scorsese, Hitchcock, Kurosawa, Kubrick or any other director you care to name.

So, if you ever find yourself trying to convince someone of the scale of the atrocity perpetrated during the holocaust, don't show them Life is Beautiful, show them Schindler's List. One attempts to convince you it's all OK and to make you happy. The other is unflinchingly honest and will make sure you never forget, which is the whole point of HMD.