In this episode of Across the Movie Aisle, host Sonny Bunch is joined by Alyssa Rosenberg and Peter Suderman to unpack the outrage over indie film platform MUBI’s investment ties and whether ethical boycotts are even coherent in modern capitalism. Then they dig into Celine Song’s latest film Materialists, a rom-com that tries to be profound—but might just be pretty nonsense.
Discussion about this episode
Share this post
Anyway, the Materialists works 'good enough' for a nice popcorn movie about attractive people trying to navigate human connection.
It of course, was subpar to Past Lives which is quite a special, poignant film. Past Lives was excellent. Materialists was ok/ good enough.
I hate whataboutism. I hate that the only time I hear a take on Palestine on the bulwark it’s something like this. And I really hate it when people who aren’t doing anything to make the world better call other people hypocrites.
This is the baloney that makes average Americans both Dem and Republicans hate the libs. Hell, I am a a liberal and I hate this shit.
I hate the libs and I vote for democrats. I’m an American not a democrat.
Regarding Israel and Hamas, the problem stems from the fact that Palestinians had their property stolen from them, they held title to it, in the creation of the state of Israel and that continued with the terrorists called "settlers". Hamas is a direct outcome of that theft. Of course, it also is a direct outcome of European Christians persecuting Jews since Rome became a Christian empire. Europe failed the Jews and the Palestinians. You brought it up.
That said, people have the freedom to fight injustice with a boycott. Whether that does any good when the ultimate grievances are never discussed and thus the solutions are avoided is another issue.
I know god doesn’t exist, however people seem to believe in voodoo and the Old Testament has the Jews living in that land. Israel fought off all the countries around them and took the land in 1948, like you said. They are there and not going anywhere.
And that they never compensated the Palestinians for stealing their property they will not know peace. This situation exist because the Israelis victimized the Palestinians, had they went about creating their state fairly or the Europeans given the Jewish people European territory, this would be happening.
Perhaps you’re correct.
I believe the Bible said the Jews were the chosen people and that land was given to them by god. It was stolen from the Jews when they were enslaved by Egypt. I’m not religious so I’m trying to remember what was taught to me as a young child.
God doesn't exist. They can believe what they want, but they nor the Europeans who carved up the Middle East had any authority to allow the theft of property in the creation of states after WWI and of Israel in 1948.
Archeology exists. There are ancient scrolls, artifacts and history belonging to the Jews in the territory that became the state of Israel. And Great Britain held ownership of all that land. If Israel is a 'land stealing' state, so is Jordan.
And what about Pakistan? Wasn't that a carved out country that also took land from India as part of its development? And what about America? Etc. Etc.
But what is happening NOW on the West Bank in settlers conviscating land from Palestinians is unacceptable as that has happened since boundaries were established and is a current issue that should be resolved fairly. But part of the root of that issue ( besides religious fanaticism) is the struggling economy of Israel. That land is cheaper and the government 'gives' it to Israeli families who struggle financially to encourage birth rates. And these families are desperate and want to afford a home and raise their kids. So I understand those families.
But the Israeli government is the problem because of not coming up with humane and fair solutions for Israeli families that do not violate Palestinian community rights in West Bank.
None of that matters because the ONLY thing that matters is that the Palestinians owned the property that was stolen from them without just compensation.
My understanding is that they lived on the land and it was their cultural home. They collectively owned 44% of the land with other Arabs as state- owned (public land). The Jews owned 7 %.The majority was owned through a British mandate. So you are only partially correct. And a chunk of the land was given to Jordan for the Palestinians to live. So compensation is complicated because Jordan could be considered partial compensation as well as land they were able to keep. Regardless, none of what you said matters RIGHT NOW when there is a humanitarian crisis and ethnic cleansing going on in the land they still own.. That needs to stop. There needs to be an end of killing and driving people off their land before figuring out compensation.
And what happens when countries/states win land through wars? Does everyone else in the world get to keep land they win through war settlements unless they are Jews? I guess the majority of countries in this entire world owe out a lot of compensation to other lands then. Not going to happen......
The only salient fact is that people, in this case Palestinians, owned, had legal title, to property. That the overlaying government changes doesn't change that fact. Those Palestinians had their property stolen from them and they were driven out. It is that uncompensated theft and ethnic cleansing, that is at the heart of the problem and it will continue until either the Palestinians are eliminated, as Israel is apparently trying to do, or the Palestinians are made whole.
Yes. If you are going to boycott, you'd best have a very specific, achievable target in mind.
No one has a monopoly on victimhood. After the German defeat in WW2, 85% of the population of Gdansk -- a historically German city in Poland then known as Danzig -- were expelled.
Why is is hypocritical to pick and choose? That's only hypocritical if your stated stance is "I will boycott anything and everything ethically questionable." But who takes that stance? My stance is "I will boycott those entities whose behavior offends me the most and/or whose behavior threatens things that are most personally meaningful to me and/or in those cases where I think my boycott can have the most impact." The Tesla takedown is working. The Montgomery Bus Boycott worked. Does anybody actually think Rosa Parks and her followers were "hypocrites" because they didn't boycott every single segregationist organization in the country? This is a nonsense idea of purity that only gets in the way of actually achieving something. Do what you can and what is possible. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
I agree with you 100 percent that blanket boycotts of Israeli companies or products are beyond useless, and possibly unfair because those corporations have very limited capacity to persuade Netanyahu. My issue was with suggesting that all boycotts are hypocritical. And to be clear: you cannot achieve anything politically without harming someone. The goal of boycotts is to weaken corporations, states, organizations etc enough that they make or advocate for changes. I’m not going to lose any sleep over harming portfolios that contain Tesla stock.