The legal world made an unexpected step towards Christmas film debate as renowned GW law professor, Jonathan Turley, made a contentious comparison between Donald Trump’s holiday greeting and the film ‘Die Hard’. The academic’s attempt to merge popular culture with politics rapidly became grist for the media mill. Above the Law provided coverage of the eye-brow raising situation, and their account adopts a decidedly critical tone.
The source of the matter was a Christmas message from Trump, issued through his personal social media platform. The former President delivered a holiday greeting in which he wished scorn upon his enemies in rather strong terms, capped with a festive ‘Again, Merry Christmas’. This message prompted Turley to enter the fray, presumably seeking to generate some headlines during the quiet period between Christmas and New Year’s Day.
In response to Trump’s message, Turley posted on his Twitter account an analogical comparison. He equated Trump’s cryptic holiday greetings with the perennial debate about whether the action film ‘Die Hard’ can be classified as a Christmas movie, due to its narrative’s holiday setting. This claim, albeit whimsical, was met with significant scrutiny.
Critics argued that, while the ‘Die Hard’ debate has its contextual foundations – revolving around a man’s quest to reunite his kin amid the havoc of unchecked avarice – it hardly resonates with the question of whether ‘rot in hell’ counts as a holiday greeting. Others went further, criticizing Turley’s rhetoric as a mere attention-seeking device. They accused the legal scholar of leveraging a popular cinematic debate to gain additional exposure rather than contributing a substantial commentary to the discourse.
The question remains if Turley might be drawing attention to unchecked aggression and hostility weakening the spirit of the festive season. But even such an argument, suppressed beneath the sensational analogy, has its detractors. Critics say that Turley’s comparison equates Trump’s rhetoric with the nuanced thematic complexities of ‘Die Hard’, a connection they see as ill-judged at best.
No matter the academic value of Turley’s comparison, it serves as a reminder for the legal fraternity that concepts can be contextualized across a broad range of public life – including even the less expected corners of pop culture.