The furore over the ‘Last Supper’ scene at the Paris Olympics opening ceremony makes you think of several things at once. But first, the facts. It seems the organisers themselves called it ‘The Last Supper on a Stage on the Seine’. Barbara Butch, the person in the middle of the tableau, posted on her Instagram handle, “Oh Yes! Oh Yes! The new gay testament” below images of her tableau and Leonardo da Vinci’s famous Last Supper painting. After the backlash, however, she deleted that post and posted, as no doubt ordered, that the tableau was actually inspired by a painting of a Greek bacchanal or divine orgy by van Bijlert, made long after da Vinci’s Last Supper. That is an obscure painting in a museum in the French town of Dijon. How was anyone not a European art historian supposed to know that? The tableau did resemble da Vinci’s painting in its overall arrangement. Was the public being asked to doubt the evidence?
If we look again, we may feel they, in fact, used both paintings as a reference. Their tableau began as da Vinci’s painting and became closer to van Bijlert’s when the almost-naked man painted blue appeared and began to cavort in front of the tableau. So, it looks like the organisers were telling a half-truth to defend themselves from the worldwide Christian backlash.
Next comes the issue of transgenders in the tableau. I think many people would agree society should be more inclusive of biological differences. But many people have also said the issue of transgenders and LGBTQ should not be foregrounded in every forum. Most pertinently, it has nothing to do with sports, except, shockingly, that biologically male boxers were allowed to combat women. So why push the agenda at the Olympics?
Also, it struck people as literally gross that fat, unfit people were being showcased at a sporting event that demands each athlete to train hard and achieve peak physical form to even qualify. So it looked like a mockery of physical fitness, of ‘inclusivity’ being enforced in the wrong place at the wrong time. Just as some have the right to be overweight, others have the right to push their physical limits and you cannot try to intrude yourself into their zone. How will that win friends or influence people?
But what really upset many people as I saw on social media, and horrified me too, was that a child was plonked in the middle of the orgy scene and exposed to male nudity by a performer next to her. This seemed to slyly validate pedophilia, the sexual abuse of children. How did the organisers even think of it? People also protested that the Olympics opening ceremony was watched as a family event on TV by millions, and such scenes were hugely problematic to watch along with children.
‘Audi alteram partem’ or ‘hear the other side’ is the law of natural justice. So what did the organisers have to say? Firstly, their ‘apology’ did not convince many. What they said was ‘we’re sorry if anyone was offended’, not an honest admission of ‘we may have got this wrong’. Next, sarcastic posts began to do the rounds, accusing offended Christians of being uncultured and poorly educated, saying, “The reference of the opening ceremony in Paris was not ‘The Last Supper’ by Leonardo da Vinci but ‘The Feast of the Gods’ by Jan Harmensz van Bijlert, painted in 1635. The subject is a Dionysian bacchanal depicting the Gods of Olympus celebrating the wedding of Thetis and Peleus, with Apollo (not Jesus) crowned at the centre of the table and Dionysios, the god of wine and festivity, featured in the foreground. The Greek gods were the patrons of the very first Olympic games in Greece. So very appropriate. This hysterical misinterpretation is what happens when people are so stupid and ignorant that they know nothing about the Olympics, history, art or ancient Greek mythology. Maybe they should try reading something else besides the Bible for a change.”
This was as offensive as the tableau to many Christians. How on earth is everyone supposed to know these obscure references to dead gods from another culture? The tone is both condescending and unpleasantly colonial. Whose fault was it for mixing things up? I am reminded of what the American poet Ogden Nash said: ‘Here’s a good rule of thumb/Too clever is dumb’.
Which brings us to the must-be-faced point of why the French are against the church. My clinical view is if they could throw out their old gods, it was only a matter of time before they threw out the new one. Matters were not helped by the violent history of the church. It did not support the French Revolution. It supported slavery and opposed equal rights. It tortured people, burnt them at the stake, and conducted terrifying, punitive Inquisitions. It amassed wealth and tried to run a parallel government. It covered up for clergymen who were sexual predators, even child molesters. The Vatican actively helped Nazis escape to South America. So, if sections of the French Republic, founded on the principle of liberty, equality and fraternity, see the church as an enemy of humanity, they have historical reasons.
Putting this complicated scenario wholly aside, this is my take as an Asian, grounded in the culture of atithi devo bhava and mehman nawazi. If the people of the world have come to your home trusting your good manners and hospitality, it’s simply not done to be rude. Besides the public, so many athletes there are Christian. Whatever your beliefs, how could you hurt their feelings while they are your guests?
(Views are personal)
(shebaba09@gmail.com)
Renuka Narayanan