MovieChat Forums > Kon-Tiki (2013) Discussion > M. Dargis' Racist Review in the 4/26/13 ...

M. Dargis' Racist Review in the 4/26/13 N Y Times


as a film critic is obviously your job to critique the quality or
not of the acting, writing and directing in a film. but Dargis makes
a few comments in her review that since they have nothing to do with
the acting, writing and directing per se can only be interpreted as
racist. for some reason she harps on the fact the film's six leads
are blond healthy strapping Nordic types. but they were weren't they?
so why mention it in the snarky tone of it being a negative element
in the film? is that basically racist?

reply

I agree. There would be no reason to remark on the 'race' of the men on the Kon-Tiki in that manner.

reply

[deleted]

Dargis does seem perturbed about the "blond boy" and his blond friends on the raft. But they were 5 Norwegians and a Swede; and if you look at photos of the actual crew from the original "Kon Tiki" book, the actors resemble the real men closely. She seems more disturbed that she can't tell them apart once the beards set in; the "they all look alike to me" syndrome. (Which some people might interpret as racist; but let's not go there.)

One of her other dissatisfactions is Heyerdahl's alleged "abuse" of science - that he ignored "overwhelming" evidence that contradicted his theory that the Polynesian islands were settled from South America rather than Asia. It's true that the Kon Tiki trip instigated a storm of controversy in anthropological scholarship that still rages. However, recent studies have uncovered evidence - particularly in the DNA of modern Pacific Islanders - of ancestors who came from both the East and West. Heyerdahl wasn't trying to prove that the Pacific Island peoples didn't come from Asia; he wanted to show that it was technically possible for them to migrate from South America; which he did. Since it seems that the islanders' ancestors came from both directions (and why should this not be the case?), Dargis' argument is moot.

Plus, she apparently thought the movie was just boring. It sounds to me like she'd be happier going to see Star Trek.

reply

"Racist" this, "racist" that. Tired of having that term casually thrown around every time someone disagrees with something.
Some people don't seem to have any idea what that word means.

reply

Ummm... is there something wrong with strapping healthy super-blond Nords? I enjoyed all the blond nordic gods

(•_•)

can't outrun your own shadow

I AM DEE BEE -- 10 years !

reply

I am shocked, shocked I tell you that a Norwegian movie about six Nordic men would cast six Nordic men in those roles!

I disagree with you, but I'm pretty sure you're not Hitler.
- Jon Stewart

reply

[deleted]

New York Times critic Manohla Dargis, who is not Jewish, but to use her words, “I am married to a Jewish man, so I am sensitive to the representation of” … how jewish Hollywood is. It doesn’t stop her from complaining that Hollywood’s movies are too “white”. - http://age-of-treason.com/2011/02/14/jews-run-hollywood-whites-get-the-blame/


-------Gå på disco rulla hatt, med SunTrip varje natt-------

reply

So she's a racist Jew-valorizer, and probably a Zionist as well. Her prejudices in no way touch the heroism and physical strength and beauty of the WHITE, NON-JEWISH, NORDIC crew of the Kon-Tiki. White people/northern Europeans need to stand up and stop taking it on the chin from those who hate them for being white people/northern Europeans.

reply