0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
51 replies
45 recasts
258 reactions
> That show was blasphemy!
The concept of blasphemy (the action of speaking sacrilegiously about a god or the sacred) may speak to you, but it explicitly does not exist in secular France [i]. In France, religions are treated as mere ideas, and like all ideas, they can be examined, praised, criticized, and even mocked. In the eyes of the secular French republic, no text or religious icon deserves special protection, no matter how holy to some.
That aspect of freedom of speech is as foundational to the French as the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is to Americans.
Of course, people whose identity is rooted in faith might take offense at that, which leads me to... 2/9 6 replies
2 recasts
65 reactions
> Why pick on religion though?
I can't speak for the artistic director (Thomas Jolly)'s decision to add religion to the show. But one clue is that France has had a long adversarial history with religion. Until the Revolution of 1789, the Catholic church ruled over all of society. The clergy ran civil registries, public schools, higher education, tax collection, and courts. You had better be a good Catholic or you would be subject to arbitrary abuse, including massacres of people of other or no faith.
All that changed not just in 1789 but also as recently as 1905, when a law [ii] put a final end to Catholicism being the state religion of France. Common people revolted, fought, and died for the right to criticize religion.
Furthermore, the show also picked at another ancient French institution, the royalty, by prominently displaying a beheaded Marie Antoinette. The French maintain a certain pride in having ousted their king and clergy simultaneously, and have kept a deep distrust of both ever since. 4/9 2 replies
1 recast
30 reactions
> Why pick on Christianity and not Islam?
My first reaction to this question was, "Yikes!".
The likely answer though is that the French mocking Catholicism (as the historically dominant religion) is akin to the French mocking themselves and their own past, which is considered acceptable.
It would be extremely weird to a French audience if a public show like the Olympics opening randomly mocked a foreign religion, whether Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, etc. without any historical basis for doing so. Remember that Islam is much more recent to France than Christianity (8th century notwithstanding [iii]), and remains a minority religion in the country.
Furthermore, French artists have in fact taken to criticizing other religions, incl. Islam, in the past few years and in less notable settings, and some have paid a heavy price ([iv]). Laws have also been updated to extend secular rules to Islam ([v]). So, it's not like other religions get a free pass under the French republic. 5/9 3 replies
0 recast
31 reactions
2 replies
0 recast
29 reactions
4 replies
0 recast
32 reactions
> Even with all this context, the show was not appropriate for the Olympics.
Surprisingly, I have not seen this argument posted online, and yet it is the one I might actually be most sympathetic to. Flaunting the über-French concept of laïcité [vii] to a worldwide audience of all cultures was an incredibly ambitious and idiosyncratic choice, and one very likely to result in misunderstandings. It's hard enough to explain it even to a mature audience with the appropriate context.
Yet, that particular brand of secularism is very core to the French identity. So, should the show have portrayed France as it truly is? Or should it be consensual entertainment, sticking to Amélie Poulain clichés that a foreign audience might expect?
On the one hand, the show was made in Paris, by a French director, to celebrate France hosting the games. On the other, the Olympics belong to all of humanity, and a neutral tone should prevail.
You decide for yourself, but I hope the thread provided useful context. 8/9 11 replies
1 recast
47 reactions
1 reply
0 recast
18 reactions
1 reply
1 recast
17 reactions
