Scandal as Finnish national hero Mannerheim played by black actor

[garbon]

So bottom line: Mannerheim was a homophobic square who fought alongside the Nazis.

Being portrayed by a Kenyan in a movie 23 people will watch seems like the least of his worries for posterity.

[Martinus]

I'd be sensitive too if a hero of mine was portrayed as gay.

Would you be sensitive if a hero of yours was portrayed as gay for the purpose of slandering him?

No, because I don't think that being gay is a bad thing.

So it's not slander if it make one look good in your eyes? It's the lie and deliberate misrepresentation that is the problem.

In order for something to be slander it needs to portray someone in a negative light, not just portray someone wrongly.

If Napoleon was portrayed as liking carrot juice whereas in fact he didn't, that would not be slander, would it?

[Martinus]

So it's not slander if it make one look good in your eyes? It's the lie and deliberate misrepresentation that is the problem.

It's not slander if it's someone who's dead and the film's an artistic representation with no claims to literalism.  Looking up the film in question it was in clay-motion and inspired by local folk-lore mingling with the story of Mannerheim - with respect I think that's a slender reed for any historical outrage. 

Whether it would be defamation or not depends on Finnish law, so I wouldn't be so sure about the legalities. 

Even under US law, I'm not sure that it's impossible to defame a deceased person.  Actually, I'm pretty sure that it's possible, and the Mannerheim family would have standing to sue.  Whether an allegation of homosexuality does or doesn't harm the reputation of a heterosexual might, at this point, make an interesting test case, but I think that it would probably be found to at least be potentially harmful, but there would be a burden of proof to should any actual harm.  (This isn't really discriminatory--in theory an untrue allegation of heterosexuality made against an acknowledged homosexual could be equally defamatory--but again, there would be a burden of proof to demonstrate actual harm.)  The film could be defended against charges of defamation by claiming that it is satire, and therefore protected speech.  (I don't think that the film is "an artistic representation with no claims to literalism" in-and-of itself, would be a valid defense--if it presents statements that are false and cause harm, it's actionable.  It would probably make claims that it caused actual harm harder to prove.)  And any suit against the filmmakers would have to demonstrate that there was actual malice involved, since Mannerheim was undoubtedly a public figure.

But again, this is if there were a suit under US law.  I have no idea about Finnish law.

I think the more interesting question than that is to what extent the right to defend a deceased person from defamation should apply to distant relatives. For example, currently there are hundreds of thousands of people descended from Genghis Khan - surely noone in their right mind would argue though that everyone of these people has a valid case in defamation cases against depicting Genghis Khan in a negative light, no?

[dps]

I'd be sensitive too if a hero of mine was portrayed as gay.

Would you be sensitive if a hero of yours was portrayed as gay for the purpose of slandering him?

No, because I don't think that being gay is a bad thing.

So it's not slander if it make one look good in your eyes? It's the lie and deliberate misrepresentation that is the problem.

In order for something to be slander it needs to portray someone in a negative light, not just portray someone wrongly.

If Napoleon was portrayed as liking carrot juice whereas in fact he didn't, that would not be slander, would it?

It might be if it somehow causes harm.  I can't see how Napoleon being inaccurately portrayed as liking carrot juice could cause harm, but I can see how having one's sexual proclivitites and practices inaccurately portrayed could.

I think the more interesting question than that is to what extent the right to defend a deceased person from defamation should apply to distant relatives. For example, currently there are hundreds of thousands of people descended from Genghis Khan - surely noone in their right mind would argue though that everyone of these people has a valid case in defamation cases against depicting Genghis Khan in a negative light, no?

Probably not, because as with the Napoleon/carrot juice example, I don't see how they could demonstrate harm.

[Sheilbh]

In order for something to be slander it needs to portray someone in a negative light, not just portray someone wrongly.

Yeah, in England it needs to be damaging to their reputation and could cause them to be 'shunned or avoided' and it's based on the opinion of the reasonable man.  I doubt that calling someone gay would be covered by that now.

So bottom line: Mannerheim was a homophobic square who fought alongside the Nazis.

I think the bottom line is that saying things offensive to Muslims is a glorious use of free speech.  Saying things that offend the sacred totems of Eastern European history is wrong and immoral.

The Satanic Verses is a great book, but implying in a claymation film, featuring his somewhat spiritual journeys to Central Asia were he meets his Kyrghz lover 'butterfly', that Mannerheim was gay or bisexual is TOO MUCH.  The same goes for defaming the crown of St. Stephen, or insulting Mary the Queen of Poland.

I still can't get my head round the idea that a stop-motion film not being accurate is objectionable

[The Minsky Moment]

I still can't get my head round the idea that a stop-motion film not being accurate is objectionable

After all the historical research by Harryhausen to make sure the skeleton assault on the Argonauts precisely reflected ancient Greek archival records and the lastest archaeological findings, the standards are just higher than in live action, where anything goes.

[Camerus]

I do agree that the film in many ways is simply an unusual or 'artsy' take on history - nothing particularly unusual about that, and I'd like to watch it myself.  Sounds interesting to me.

That said, in the context of the not uncommonly-held belief in the various parts of Europe that European culture is "under threat" due to mass immigration, it's not surprising how that crowd would see this movie as just another example of western cultural decline - and thus ruffle some feathers.

[The Minsky Moment]

That said, in the context of the not uncommonly-held belief in the various parts of Europe that European culture is "under threat" due to mass immigration, it's not surprising how that crowd would see this movie as just another example of western cultural decline - and thus ruffle some feathers.

Simple solution to that problem:
Grow up.

[Camerus]

That said, in the context of the not uncommonly-held belief in the various parts of Europe that European culture is "under threat" due to mass immigration, it's not surprising how that crowd would see this movie as just another example of western cultural decline - and thus ruffle some feathers.

Simple solution to that problem:
Grow up.

But that would undermine the main goal of this type of art - namely to annoy or "challenge".   

[Tonitrus]

This outrage is just as silly as the outrage that came about long ago when Eddie Murphy played an Egyptian pharaoh in a Michael Jackson video.

[Valmy]

I think the bottom line is that saying things offensive to Muslims is a glorious use of free speech.  Saying things that offend the sacred totems of Eastern European history is wrong and immoral.

I was not aware free speech meant everything that is said is correct and moral.  Rather I thought it was supposed to protect those who say things others think are wrong and immoral from persecution and violence.  So what is your point?

I still can't get my head round the idea that a stop-motion film not being accurate is objectionable

REally?  All sorts of films based on historical topics I find objectionable for various reasons of accuracy.

[garbon]

I think the bottom line is that saying things offensive to Muslims is a glorious use of free speech.  Saying things that offend the sacred totems of Eastern European history is wrong and immoral.

I was not aware free speech meant everything that is said is correct and moral.  Rather I thought it was supposed to protect those who say things others think are wrong and immoral from persecution and violence.  So what is your point?

I'd think his point is that the same people who object to this film are likely the same people who cheered loudly in support of the Danish cartoons, most of which were nothing short of puerile.

Which on some level also speaks to a sort of racism hidden behind these objections.

REally?  All sorts of films based on historical topics I find objectionable for various reasons of accuracy.

Objectionable to what degree? I mean the Elizabeth films with Cate Blanchett certainly had their share of inaccuracies but I wouldn't say that made them offensive or awful films.

Or perhaps, as Joan mentioned it, Shakespeare's plays that use historical figures. Are those objectionable?

[Valmy]

I'd think his point is that the same people who object to this film are likely the same people who cheered loudly in support of the Danish cartoons, most of which were nothing short of puerile.

Which on some level also speaks to a sort of racism hidden behind these objections.

Yeah ok I support people's right to be puerile without persecution so I guess I am a racist?

Objectionable to what degree? I mean the Elizabeth films with Cate Blanchett certainly had their share of inaccuracies but I wouldn't say that made them offensive or awful films.

Or perhaps, as Joan mentioned it, Shakespeare's plays that use historical figures. Are those objectionable?

I found 'Birth of a Nation' rather objectionable in its portrayal of Reconstruction.  Is that so hard to get ones head around?

[garbon]

I'd think his point is that the same people who object to this film are likely the same people who cheered loudly in support of the Danish cartoons, most of which were nothing short of puerile.

Which on some level also speaks to a sort of racism hidden behind these objections.

Yeah ok I support people's right to be puerile without persecution so I guess I am a racist?

So you're just going to ignore the comparison where it isn't okay to malign a European figure but it is okay to malign a Muslim one?

I found 'Birth of a Nation' rather objectionable in its portrayal of Reconstruction.  Is that so hard to get ones head around?

I feel like I'm about to repeat myself in the same post.  So you're just going to ignore my examples?

[jimmy olsen]

So bottom line: Mannerheim was a homophobic square who fought alongside the Nazis.

The Fins hardly had much choice given the circumstances.