Jean-Luc Godard and his honorary Oscar: Does it matter if he's an anti-Semite?

Jean-Luc Godard, who's getting an honorary Oscar on Nov. 13, is suddenly back in the news, although not with the sort of media attention likely to burnish his image. Last month, the Jewish Journal put Godard on its cover, asking the provocative question: "Is Jean-Luc Godard an Anti-Semite?" And now, Tuesday's New York Times has a front page story examining the controversial honorary Oscar, describing what it calls "a simmering debate over whether Mr. Godard, an avowed anti-Zionist and advocate for Palestinian rights, is also anti-Jewish."

For me, the most fascinating part of the Times story, penned by Michael Cieply, was what wasn't in it. For all the supposed hubbub, there wasn't a complaint about the award from anyone in Hollywood. Even producer Mike Medavoy, who took issue with Godard's "narrow mind" toward Jews, said he was "fine with" Godard getting an award. The only person taking issue with the award was an executive at B'nai B'rith International, who argued that Hollywood had established standards for art but not for decency or morality.

It seemed even odder that Tom Sherak, the academy's president, wasn't quoted at all, while Sid Ganis, who is producing the ceremony, didn't defend the choice either, only being quoted about the selection of film clips in a tribute reel. Curious, I called Sherak to ask if he'd tried to dodge the bullet. Not at all, he said. So, I asked him: Do you have any misgivings about giving Godard an honorary Oscar?   

"I support the Board of Governors," he said. "They decided to give an honorary Oscar to Godard for his contributions to film during the early years of the French New Wave era. The academy has traditionally separated the art form from the honoree's personal life." I asked Sherak if he could be more specific. "We've given awards in the past to people like Roman Polanski and Elia Kazan whose personal lives were often far from perfect. They did objectionable things and we've been criticized for giving them awards. But that's not what's at issue here. We've always felt the art form outweighs the personal transgressions."  

Although I've been a frequent critic of the academy in other matters, I have to say that I've got no beef with their stand here. Artists aren't always especially admirable people in their personal lives, and if we started shunning every actor or filmmaker for misdeeds and bigotry, we'd find ourselves running out of potential award recipients. The Jewish Journal has gotten a lot of mileage out of Hollywood anti-Semitism scares, having run a cover story last February that examined the Oscar-nominated films "A Serious Man" and An Education," using the headline "Realism or Anti-Semitism?"

In fact, the Journal's Danielle Berrin, who writes one of my favorite blogs, Hollywood Jew, found herself pondering this recently, in the wake of the flap over Mel Gibson getting hired -- and then unhired -- from "The Hangover 2." Noting that a Journal archive search for "Mel Gibson" turned up 204 results, she admitted to having reached a breaking point in her obsession with "his strange psychotic behavior." She added: "No matter how much communal schadenfreude we can muster, it won’t change him; he is already a sad parody of himself. What I fear is that it’s changing us, and every time we talk about him, we give him new life."

Now it's Godard who has a new life, not only thanks to the Journal, of course, but the academy, which started the ball rolling with an honorary Oscar. Godard deserves the Oscar, but he also deserves to be criticized for some of his more outlandish statements. It's OK to do both. I wish all of our most gifted artists had hearts of pure gold, like the gleaming Oscar statuettes, but we don't live in a world of pristine good and evil. Many of our idols have feet of clay.  

Photo: Jean-Luc Godard, pictured in 1981, during an interview with the Los Angeles Times. Credit: Los Angeles Times

Comments

[Brendan Ryan]

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences will be awarding Jean-Luc Godard with the coveted Governors Award because of the legendary director's contributions of over one hundred movies, including, "Keep Your Right Up: A Place on the Earth," and "Contempt." Godard, who has been outside of mainstream Hollywood for over a decade, should no longer suffer the same burdens for his beliefs as many of today’s Hollywood movie stars do, and probably would agree.

Brendan Ryan

The Brendan Ryan Company
Houston, Texas

[The Jewish Journal is just a right wing soundboard]

Being anti zionist is not being anti semitic, stop confusing the two. The state of Israel is less than 70 years old and Jews have been around just a little longer. As a Jew I truly resent the parallel between the two. And Mr. Costello, please tell me about all the American Communist slaughters that were carried out that made McCarthyism good.

[ali]

there are so many defenders of Isreali terrorism.This is how Bin Laden always
complains "Our religion(Islam) is in danger".Most of the muslims do not listen to him but thank god his propaganda does not work anymore because the western media is not working like in the 80's.

Brando knew it.Godard knows that.Refuse the honor Mr.Godard like satre refused the Nobel prize.

[GF]

It is not a matter of politics. I pasting quoutes from The Forward:
"(Godard’s) biographers recount a series of incidents expressing Godard’s unhealthy obsession with Jews, which noted French historian and journalist Pierre Assouline, on his Le Monde blog, termed “anti-Semitic.” In 1968, Godard, in the presence of (film-maker François) Truffaut, called producer Pierre Braunberger, an early supporter of New Wave filmmakers, “sale juif” (“filthy Jew”), after which Truffaut immediately broke from Godard."

In a 2009 article in Le Monde, “Godard and the Jewish Question” by Jean-Luc Douin, Godard is quoted as making an off-camera comment during the filming of a 2006 documentary: “Palestinians’ suicide bombings in order to bring a Palestinian State into existence ultimately resemble what the Jews did by allowing themselves to be led like sheep to be slaughtered in gas chambers, sacrificing themselves to bring into existence the State of Israel.”

Godard apparently believes that Jews committed mass suicide during the Holocaust in order for Israel to be created. The same article quotes him along these lines: “Basically, there were six million kamikazes” and “Hollywood was invented by Jewish gangsters.”

[WRTRPROD7]

Let he who is without sin in Hollywood throw the first stone.
What, no stones??

p.s. Anti-Zionism is just code for Anti-Semitism. Case closed.

[Frances Poole]

I find this article offensive. It is absurd propaganda (not clear on what the agenda is unless someone has an axe to grind with Godard). How is being critical of the actions of a government to be construed as racist? It's like suggesting that someone being critical of the Nazis be construed as 'anti-teutonic'.

[Brandon]

First, a thanks to those smart enough to distinguish between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. Not only is it an improper use of forms, but offensive.

I wouldn’t have though you would have to be very bright to see that we are being de-sensitized to patently accept Israel's acts of aggression towards Palestine. Despite that outrage, Godard has firmly held solidarity with the people of Palestine for decades.

What you are seeing here, and everywhere in the US press, is an ideology that grew out of the US interests in Israel (still in its infancy) and Kissinger's own disregard for the Muslim peoples. A purely economic issue, yet it lead us to this contemporary rejectionist attitude. Every small act of violence towards Israel is blown out of proportion, while the opposite is likely buried. It doesn't take to much research to see the disparity between them either. Simply put: Israel, by all accounts, is committing ethnic genocide.

Godard, in his film "Here and Elsewhere" demonstrates an understanding of this, and recent articles advocating that he is an anti-Semite all carefully note his sympathies for Palestine.

This is wrong! What is more troubling to me is that this denies those of us who don't believe in violence the use of the only counterbalance: the freedom to say (and for the press to say) that there is something immoral in Israel's recent aggressions and to analyze there implications. Without such critical discourse you are tolerating such brutality, and worse, saying that those who do tolerate it are anti-Semites.