Monday, August 13, 2007
Hollywood finally locates religious terrorism
Yes, Hollywood is finally making a movie about the religious fanaticism behind September 11. Thing is, it's the wrong September 11:
The movie industry has pointedly avoided harsh treatment of modern Islamic radicals, but September Dawn (to be released nationally Aug. 24) portrays the 19th century Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a deeply corrupt cult led by an all-powerful, blood-thirsty mass murderer....
To try to claim contemporary relevance for September Dawn, its director, Christopher Cain, and its veteran star, Jon Voight, both tell interviewers that the project recounts a pertinent story of "religious fanaticism" — emphasizing the eerie coincidence of the massacre's date (Sept. 11) and showing martyred "prophet" Joseph Smith (portrayed as an arrogant, preening dandy shortly before his death at age 39 at the hands of a lynch mob), declaring himself a "New Mohammet" and threatening holy war against his enemies.
The real question is, why is Hollywood so unwilling to make a movie about our actual enemy? Michael Medved:
The film's deliberately drawn analogy between Mountain Meadows and 9/11 raises the most puzzling question about this peculiar project: Why frame an indictment of violent religiosity by focusing on long-ago Mormon leaders rather than contemporary Muslims who perpetrate unspeakable brutalities every day?
In fact, Hollywood's reluctance to portray Islamo-Nazi killers remains difficult, if not impossible, to explain. Since 2001's devastating attacks, big studios have released numerous movies with terrorists as part of the plot, including Sum of All Fears, Red Eye, Live Free or Die Hard, The Bourne Ultimatum and many more, but virtually all of them show terrorists as Europeans or Americans with no Islamic connections. Even historically based thrillers downplay Muslim terrorism: Steven Spielberg's Munich spends more than 80% of its running time showing Israelis as killers and Palestinians as victims, while Oliver Stone's World Trade Center highlights the aftermath of the attacks with no depiction of those who perpetrated them. United 93 stands out among recent releases in showing Islamic killers in acts of terror — and it would be hard to tell that story without portraying the suicidal hijackers.
Beyond topicality, Tinseltown's respect for Muslim sensibilities has proved so pervasive that there has been little or no reference to bloody episodes of the Islamic past. In Kingdom of Heaven, Muslim followers of Saladdin appear far more sympathetic than the thuggish, devious Christian Crusaders. Despite the fact that founders of Islam built their religion through centuries of conquest vastly more bloody than incidents at the beginnings of Mormonism, it's unthinkable that filmmakers would ever depict Mohammed and his followers as viciously as they handle Brigham Young in September Dawn.
In part, preference for Mormons over Muslims as targets of cinematic scorn stems from reasonable concerns for personal safety. Islamic communities have proved more than a mite touchy over media depictions of their faith: Consider the deadly worldwide riots over a dozen Danish cartoons, or the taking of more than 100 American hostages and bans in Muslim countries inspired by the respectful 1977 film Mohammad, Messenger of God (directed by a Syrian and financed in part by the Libyan government).
As I have written before, I understand why media executives -- who are, after all, fiduciaries -- do not want to bring terrorism, or even just arsonist mobs, to their doorsteps. I get that. But there is more going on here, isn't there? If Wal-Mart refuses to carry a record album or a book because Christian conservatives merely threaten to take their business elsewhere, the progressive media elites rise in a high fury. Why is there no similar rage when Hollywood obviously avoids the most important story of our time out of fear for their lives -- the Rushdie fatwa remains in force -- or at least their affiliated corporate assets? One would think that the Islamist "violence veto" -- which is orders of magnitude more oppressive than anything Christian extremists have tried in a very long time -- would cause Hollywood's "artists" to resent and denounce Islamists and vow to speak truth to power. But they do not. Why? Could it be because the Islamists are America's enemy?
Say it ain't so.
14 Comments:
By 
, at
Mon Aug 13, 11:31:00 AM:
That reminds me of "The Ox-Bow Incident" (released in 1943).
"...a posse is formed and lynches three supposed cattle rustlers against the protests of the local judge; the rustlers are then found innocent. The novel and the movie thus criticize mob rule in favour of the proper workings of justice, even if it is slow-moving. As such, it is partly intended as a wartime defense of American values versus Nazi Germany. However, by associating Nazi mob rule with the values of the American Old West, it implies that Americans have the potential to succumb to mob rule too. Although this moral appealed to the critics, the film did poorly at the box office in part because moviegoers were dismayed by the downbeat ending and all it implied..."
I think such movies certainly need to be made.
Btw, I read an interview with Jon Voigt recently and he comes through quite lenient on Bush and a strong supporter of the US invasions in Afghanistan and Iraq.
By , at
Mon Aug 13, 11:54:00 AM:
This could all be Aesopian, as you allude to the intangible fear factor of arrousing the Muslims here and elsewhere, and is a way for Hollywood to entertain and send a message, cha-cha-cha, with out arrousing the ire of 'those people'.
But a bigger part of the answer also lies in your blog posting about the T-shirt wearing Iraqi, Jet Blue and the ACLU suing on his behalf.
There are fewer contradictions in life than we sometimes assume.
-David
By 
Wonker, at
Mon Aug 13, 12:28:00 PM:
To rephrase the observation in your final paragraph, media moguls, actors, etc.--who are super-brave when they're denouncing George Bush or telling us to use one square of TP per trip to the water closet--are deathly afraid of some Islamofascist imam putting a contract out on them, a la Salman Rushdie.
Their solution? Hide out in the Land of Moral Equivalency and use the early Mormons as a proxy, a metaphor, for the Islamofascists they are afraid to confront.
The elites love to make grand proclamations or sweeping artistic gestures when they know they will suffer no consequences. If there's a chance they'll be dealt some damage, however, they'll rationalize their moral positions every time. The complicit MSM will readily provide them cover. Game, set, and match.
The elites in both the MSM and the entertainment industry are far more interested in being SEEN to be virtuous rather than actually practice virtuous behavior. They behave like adolescents in a high school clique. There is no maturity here.
Jon Voigt is apparently somewhat to the right of the average Hollywoodian, as Candide observes. The actor has been pretty diplomatic about this on the talk show circuit. But he, too, has to negotiate the "progressive" (read "socialist") thicket in which he and his industry dwell. So he pulls his punches a bit, like a veteran politician who refuses to be completely pinned down on a controversial topic.
Hollywood and the U.S. were allies in WW II, and it certainly helped keep morale at high levels. Right now, we're lucky we have any morale left at all.
By GreenmanTim, at
Mon Aug 13, 02:58:00 PM:
Bear in mind that I, a left-leaning Democrat, am suggesting this, but it is hard to believe that a movie about historical Morman fanaticism and separatism coming out during a presidential campaign where a high profile Republican candidate is also Morman is purely coincidence.
By Larry Sheldon, at
Mon Aug 13, 04:26:00 PM:
You have no idea how much it pains me to agree with a self avowed "left-leaning Democrat"[1] but I started this comment for the specific purpose of inquiring as to why the Church of the Latter Day Saints[2] was selected as the surrogate Muslims. Surely the "M" was not as persuasive as the facts regarding other nominally Christian sect who have been historically as bloody as the renegade Muslims seem to be.
[1] "Not Much" is the right answer. I see no persuasive proof that either "left-leaning" or "Democrat" identifies a group that is overwhelmingly any thing in particular. True also of every other tag or set of tags that I know of.
[2] I am not now nor have I ever been a Mormon, nor have they ever mistaken me for one. I was raised more Presbyterian than anything else, I am now nominally an Episcopalian. Not all of my views are shared by anybody.
By Purple Avenger, at
Mon Aug 13, 04:33:00 PM:
...hard to believe...is purely coincidence...
Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner!
By Whiskey, at
Mon Aug 13, 08:03:00 PM:
The broader issue of Hollywood siding with Islamic terrorists: Road to Guantanomo, Syriana, Munich, etc. is indicative of the cultural war going on.
Simply put, Hollywood, the Left, Feminists, Gays etc. wish to destroy conventional society and replace it with something else. Where average men have no chance at marriage and family, are poor not middle class, and the society consists of the extremely rich nomenklatura (Hollywood, Media, Dem Politicos) and the very, very poor (everyone else). CERTAINLY no one in Hollywood wants to share political power with ordinary people especially soldiers in fighting Islamists.
Hollywood is filled with Alpha male types and feminists who are filled with hate for ordinary people, particularly ordinary men. One is their ally (Islamists) and the other is their enemy (ordinary people).
By Jim VAT, at
Mon Aug 13, 11:09:00 PM:
I went to go see the Bourne Ultimatum this weekend and there were two anti-war previews: Rendition and The Lion for Lambs.
I said out loud: "I'll never watch another movie with those mother fuckers in it."
People just looked at me weird.
By , at
Tue Aug 14, 12:47:00 AM:
I dont suppose it would bug the hollywood liberals to make a movie showing how blood thirsty that AZTECS,INCAS and MYANS were would it?
By TigerHawk, at
Tue Aug 14, 07:10:00 AM:
Michael Medved also wonders if the movie isn't driven by Romney's candidacy. I don't know. The movie is being released in a couple of weeks. When did the project get "greenlighted"? What is the production cycle of a major Hollywood movie? I sort of thought it would take at least a couple of years to get a movie like this from contracts to the theaters -- would investors have actually bet that this movie would make money based on the Romney factor back in 2005? Seems like a stretch to me, but I admit I know nothing about show biz.
By , at
Tue Aug 14, 08:12:00 AM:
Most Hollywood personalities are: 1) Opposed to the war against terrorism 2) Believe that there is no such thing as a terrorist threat 3) Believe that Islam is a religion of peace 4) Don't believe that muslims are terrorists.
So why do you think they would make a movie that contradicts their beliefs?
By Georg Felis, at
Tue Aug 14, 09:55:00 AM:
cz: Um, for the money? For avowed socialists, most actors would wade thru a river of (your) blood for a dollar.
Bird: A movie was recently made showing the…quaint traditions of the South American indigenous peoples recently, although it was made by Mel Gibson. “Apocalypto”
I agree with TH: A loose reading of the timeline of this movie kind of indicates a D grade movie to be released straight to video back in 2006, that was picked up and given a new coat of wax and a polish (minor editing) to be released during campaign season. It would be “interesting” to see the balance sheets on this movie and who plugged money in and when.
By Miss Ladybug, at
Tue Aug 14, 07:20:00 PM:
I went to see The Bourne Ultimatum today. I didn't see those previews Jim mentioned, but I saw one for The Kingdom. My thoughts? I wonder if the terrorists will really be Islamic militants...
By Christopher Chambers, at
Tue Aug 14, 07:35:00 PM:
Watch Big Love on HBO if you want to see how jacked up and hypocritcal (and cultish) LDS is, along with it's satellite cults it tries to hide in the closet...nothing but the Taliban in starched shirts, but hey I love that porn in Marriott hotels on the PPV!
