Making Something Out of Nothing
In a previous post regarding the Mel Gibson film The Passion of the Christ I made a brief mention of a writer named Christopher Hitchens, and made an allusion to the fact that I had issues with him unrelated to his quoted comments regarding the film in question.

Last night, on a show broadcast on MSNBC called Scarborough Country, hosted by Joe Scarborough, Hitchens was one of the guests. In what amounts to a desperate attempt to create controversy and relevance, Hitchens lambasted Gibson and his film for, among other things, promoting Anti-Semitism and, along the same lines as the quote below, making a film that's, in every instance, pornographic in nature and nothing more than an exercise in sado-masochistic gore. The interview, which is truly disgusting, accomplished nothing in my mind other than to cement the legacy of Hitchens as a languishing commentator who, in order to draw attention to himself, feels that it's necessary to criticize books, films, and politics using the harshest language imaginable. Hitchens, who by all means isn't a household name, proves in every appearance that he's utterly without scruples and cannot in any way, shape or form present a coherent argument without resorting to the types of mudslinging and insult hurling that he so decries in the objects of his criticism.

My previous encounters with Hitchens have left me with a raw view of the man, but this one takes the cake. Hitchens is a contributor to several magazines, Vanity Fair and Atlantic Monthly to name just two and an author of many books, including the excellent The Trial of Henry Kissinger. However, it always seems as if Hitchens, no matter how intellectual and book smart he seems, is nothing more than someone with a grudge. For example, in a move that seems almost unprecedented and without any forethought, Atlantic editors deemed it a wise move to print a review of the Sidney Blumenthal book The Clinton Wars by Hitchens. Why is this a bad move on their part? Well, it might have something to do with the fact that Hitchens is discussed extensively in the text as having been first a supporter of President Clinton and second a friend of Blumenthal's. It just so happens that within the course of the eight years Clinton was in office, Hitchens became both a staunch conservative in many regards, thus resigning any support for Clinton, and an awkward social guest and friend who, not to mince words, turned his back on Blumenthal. It's not a flattering picture and is more the description of the decline of a person in turmoil, which is why it's hard to see any reason to assign Hitchens to review such a text. There's been so much outcry over the review of books with regards to relationships between the reviewers and the authors of the books they're supposed to give an objective review of, that it's hard to imagine how editors missed the boat on this one unless they intentionally assigned the book to be reviewed by Hitchens in order to allow him to unleash his usual furious attack. As a result of his conversion, Hitchens has become a staunch supporter of the liberation of Iraq, which he's authored a book about, and seems to thrive on controversy alone as a way to keep him in the spotlight.

Regarding his appearance last night, Hitchens offered the most intriguing response to a question regarding how he felt about the notion that his appearance would most likely generate much comment:

I am atheist. I'm not anti-Catholic. I am not anti-Protestant. I'm not anti-Greek Orthodox or anti-Judaism or anti-Islamic. I just think that all religious belief is sinister and infantile and belongs to the backward childhood of the race and that the great thing about the United States is that it's a secular country with a godless Constitution.

The key phrase here is that he's a self-professed atheist and a harsh critic of religion as a whole. Now, having heard this, I was put in mind of a recent theory of mine. I believe that by proclaiming one is an atheist that one is (1) allowing one's self to feel guiltless about sin (2) allowing one's self, as in the quote above, to make statements that equate religious subscribers to a childish group of mongrels. I find it also curious that Hitchens equates both the enormous success of the film and the fact that no violence to speak of has resulted from its content can be attributed to the fact that we as Americans aren't easily swayed when it comes to propaganda on such a basic, blatant level. Also, we're a secular country that embraces all religions. Okay, that makes sense to some extent, but how does this account for the numbers of people who are flocking to this film in droves who are associated with a church and strident members of the Catholic faith? In other words, Hitchens seems to be equating all viewers of this film as being Godless, nonjudgemental people, or could it be that he's stating that Americans, as a whole, are just too stupid to pick up on the blatant messages of Anti-Semitism and the homoerotic themes embedded deeply within? Or could it be that it's not there to begin with? Perhaps Hitchens, as with most critics of this film, are bringing to the table a set of expectations that just aren't met to any real degree and are grasping at straws in order to portray both Gibson and his film as a potent message of intolerance and hatred? People see what they want to see, and this is no different for critics regardless of their credentials.

I encourage anyone who is interested to read the transcript of the Hitchens segment, which is available on the official MSNBC site. It's a fascinating exchange, and, I believe, a portrait of a man, much like Frank Rich, who is resorting to the very types of tactics that they both accuse Gibson of using, in Rich's case a smear campaign and in Hitchens' case a ranting tirade without any redeeming value or sufficient evidence. Judge for yourself.