Most of what he says revolves around Britain, but I think the larger statement is applicable to any Western democracy. In our history, we in America have fought against some inimical ideologies, have fought to keep them from establishing a foothold here in America. Naziism. Stalinism. We succeeded in large part because because there was a demonization of those ideologies in the public conscience.
The problem with combating the ideology of militant Islam is that it's a legitimate religion (ie, followed by large numbers of people), there are people who follow that religion peacefully, and our country has a long tradition of religious tolerance. There is also a problem that most of the people who follow Islam aren't white. So, denouncing those who follow militant Islam is seen by many as having racist overtones.
Yes, there are plenty of people who denounce militant Islam, mostly from the right, but you don't see it very often in entertainment, for the above reasons. My questions are, should entertainment demonize militant Islam, and is it possible to do it in such a way that Islam as a whole doesn't suffer?
[ September 23, 2004, 01:44 AM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
By the way, Chad, being a Brit, your input into this article would be great. Posted by Jess N (Member # 6744) on :
I think that if entertainment is going to demonize militant Islam, then it needs to present a view that says, "There are factions in Islam that are focused on the destruction of all that is not Islam, but there are also those in the faith that are more interested in living the peace of Allah." Some television shows have attempted to work with this idea, but it is difficult.
We have a tendency to see the most dramatic forms of any number of groups, even if it is clear that there are those that are far from dramatic. I think of the Women's Rights Movement. There are many, many women that are not radical feminists working to better the rights of women all over the world. But, if you ask most folk about the Women's Right Movement, they think of bra burning and Gloria Steinem. Extremism is much more fun to watch.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Yes, there are plenty of people who denounce militant Islam, mostly from the right
I think this is misleading. It was elements of the left, namely feminist and human rights groups, that denounced the worst atrocities of the Taliban, for example, and the stoning of adulterers in Africa.
Dagonee
[ September 23, 2004, 12:33 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Also, I have see two shows on TV taking this issue up.
Law and Order (no suprise there) was one of them, and took it on just tonight.
[ September 23, 2004, 01:57 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Hey, Dagonee...who's screwing this dog?
I'll grant you that we on the left may have started the fire, but my perception is that it's almost exclusively coming from the right these days, particularly when you're talking about militant Islam as a domestic threat.
aspectre, your link speaks to exactly what I'm talking about in my initial post, I think. How do you fight the particular ideology without the perception that you're talking about everyone?
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
I'm not British, but o.k.
The Entertainment industry is left to radically left. Therefore their agendas usually reflect that.
In American movies the current demon is the "Religious Bigot/Religious Zealot".
In other words, you'll see the "leftist" hero being plauged or hindered by the "rightist" detractor.
Oh, and they don't put any disclaimer that their representation of Religion is "fantasized" or "embellished".
I don't think it's good to demonize anyone unless you are going to balance it out.
I don't think you are going to see a demonization of Islamists much in Hollywood these days because many who work there sympathize with their causes due to their hatred of our countries leadership.
Evidence of a leftist agenda? Here's a sprinkling:
Mel Gibson not only couldn't get ANYONE to finance his religious move in Hollywood, but also couldn't get anyone in Hollywood to DISTRIBUTE it.
Harvey Weinstein GAVE Michael Moore 8 Million dollars to make a movie based on the premise "I want to make an Anti-Bush movie and sway the election".
Also, there were NO movies made bashing Clinton during his presidency, but Hollywood has made/distributed movies Defending him.
[ September 23, 2004, 06:45 PM: Message edited by: CStroman ]
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Also, there were NO movies made bashing Clinton during his presidency, but Hollywood has made/distributed movies Defending him.
What about Wag the Dog and Primary Colors?
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Primary Colors ended up painting POSITIVE spin on it.
Wag the Dog...I can't remember too well because I know it sucked.
The Contender was a big attacker.
The American President was another.
Dave was another.
Etc. Etc.
I heard that even remake of "The Manchurian Candidte" that was NEUTRAL in the Original now had partisan politics thrown into it.
Angels in America (Yes I survived the message. Enjoyed the acting)
The list goes on and on and on.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I find it rather amusing that all the movies Chad just listed are considered radically left. Only in America.
"I don't think you are going to see a demonization of Islamists much in Hollywood these days because many who work there sympathize with their causes due to their hatred of our countries leadership."
Whereas this is, I'm afraid, just silly. I'm not sure that hating Bush inspires anyone to sympathize with terrorism. Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Angels in America
And what was the message?
Posted by the_Somalian (Member # 6688) on :
Entertainment that sets out to demonize particular ideologies almost always come of as corny and pointless. Incidentally, Hollywood has carelessly been demonizing Arabs (or muslims) as terrorists and villains as long as cinema and television existed.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Hollywood likes stereotypes. Whites are members of the KKK. Blacks are gangsters. Jews are nerdy scientists or lawyers. Arabs are terrorists.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Entertainment that sets out to demonize particular ideologies almost always come of as corny and pointless.
You think so? What about "The Grapes of Wrath", "On the Waterfront","The Killing Fields", "Dr. Strangelove","The Manchurian Candidate","Moscow on the Hudson", etc. I think all of these movies 'demonized' various ideas/ideologies quite adeptly. Granted, you have stupid movies like the Rambo movies that are just muscle bound excuses to blow stuff up real good, but I wouldn't say that all movies that are made about an ideology are corny and pointless.
quote: Incidentally, Hollywood has carelessly been demonizing Arabs (or muslims) as terrorists and villains as long as cinema and television existed.
I agree, to some extent. This goes back to my original post. Take that new cartoon movie that has Will Smith in it. It has a character in it who, from what I understand, is a send-up of a mafia don or something. Italian-American groups are upset because they think it demonizes *all* Italians.
Do the Italians have a legitimate reason to be upset? I'm not sure they do. It's factual that most, if not all, of the people in the Mafia were Italian/Sicilian. There have been a million movies using that fact and it's ripe to be used for gags. As long as the main point of the gag is to make fun of the mafia, and not Italians, is there real harm? How can you make fun of the mafia without, at the same time, making the mafia person Italian?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Agree, nfl. It's a lazy way to make characters. Though, now you have the reverse happening. All bad guys are white. The head scientist is black, preferably black and female. I think the Arab thing isn't really around any more. Most of hte terrorists you see in the last few years are white.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
It takes a lot more creativity out of Hollywood to make someone other than Arabs terrorists. Its so much easier to go with the skeik with harem ordering suicide bombers to attack the US. On the other hand The Sum of All Fears went in the opposite direction. While the novel did have Muslim terrorists, the movie went with neo-nazis trying to renew the Cold War between the US and Russia. The Manchurian Canidate went the opposite direction. The original went with communist brainwashing, the remake had something to do with the Persian Gulf War, although I don't know the details because I decided not to ruin the original for myself.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Not seen the last one, so no se.
I think Russian communists are pretty ripe for the plucking, as in Air Force One.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:In our history, we in America have fought against some inimical ideologies, have fought to keep them from establishing a foothold here in America. Naziism. Stalinism. We succeeded in large part because because there was a demonization of those ideologies in the public conscience.
I don't think that is accurate. The thing we have fought in America for is freedom of speech. Once we had that, those ideologies demonized themselves.
I see no reason why militant Islam won't do the same - or its American counterparts in neoconservatism and militant Christian extremism.
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
The danger, I'd say, is that they will demonize related but not identical ideologies along with them--the way that is currently happening with Islam in general. People find it difficult to distinguish between the malignant and benign forms.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Yep, looks like Hollywood leans towards the left. But not as far as has been mentioned. There are plenty of right-wing stars out there. They're just quieter
[ September 24, 2004, 12:19 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
You know, that reminds me. I was thinking the other day about the push to pass an amendment so that naturalized citizens can run for president. Everyone keeps on focusing on the governator, but you know who I bet they're really gunning for and who I'm pretty sure is angling for politics? Mel Gibson. I mean, look at all the movies he's done in the last few years with patriotic themes. The Passion alone guarantees him a few hundred million votes if he ever runs for president.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Tres, up until the early 60s, Hollywood had a long history of working with government in going after communists. Made lots of anti-communism movies. Mickey Spillane was very much a beat up communists kind of private dick. The most popular television show in the 50s, bar none, was, God, I can't ever remember the guy's name. Cardinal something or other. I want to say Spellman. Anyways, it was basically him holding forth for an hour on television. Supposed to be the greatest extemporaneous orator of the 20th century. His theme was often godless communism and atheism, etc., if I recall correctly.
I don't disagree with you that those movements helped along their own demise, but it's an undeniable fact that there was a lot of media put out that demonized communism (not to say that all or most communists were bad) and fascism in the 40s.
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
quote:I was thinking the other day about the push to pass an amendment so that naturalized citizens can run for president. Everyone keeps on focusing on the governator, but you know who I bet they're really gunning for and who I'm pretty sure is angling for politics? Mel Gibson.
Actually, Gibson was born in the U.S., in New York State, so he's a born citizen, not a naturalized one. His family moved to Australia when he was 12. He taught himself to speak with an Australian accent after being picked on by kids at school.
[ September 24, 2004, 12:46 AM: Message edited by: Yozhik ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Oh. Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: And what was the message?
Angels in America?
That Mormon women are crazy and need medication. That Republicans are Nazi's. That Homosexuals who supported Reagan were Benedict Arnold. That Ronald Reagan was America's Hitler. That he was responsible for the spread of Aids. (basically anything negative about Ronald Reagan is mentioned in that Movie).That homosexuals with Aids are just poor victims of circumstance and bear NO responsibility and should feel NO remorse for any actions which led to them contracting aids (exiting monologue). That Jews represent the old unchanging philosophies and are out of touch (the beginning)Etc, etc, etc.
I would have to watch it again to give you more but I don't want to wade through Anal Sex in the Park, My First Mormon Blowjob, or A Homosexual having Sex with an Angel with 8 Vaginas.
I don't think I could stomach it.
EDIT: Oh and the whole "take religion and put a gay spin on it" was probably offensive to religious people.
[ September 24, 2004, 03:13 AM: Message edited by: CStroman ]
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote:"I don't think you are going to see a demonization of Islamists much in Hollywood these days because many who work there sympathize with their causes due to their hatred of our countries leadership."
Whereas this is, I'm afraid, just silly. I'm not sure that hating Bush inspires anyone to sympathize with terrorism.
Islamists and terrorists are different things. I don't think they sympathize with terrorists. But with the attitude of Bush towards the Middle East perhaps.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: It takes a lot more creativity out of Hollywood to make someone other than Arabs terrorists.
Patriot Games did a good job of it.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: I would have to watch it again to give you more but I don't want to wade through Anal Sex in the Park, My First Mormon Blowjob, or A Homosexual having Sex with an Angel with 8 Vaginas.
I don't think I could stomach it.
Whereas, my nipples are hard just reading about it.
j/k.
Angels was reviewed here on Hatrack when it first came out and I seem to recall that the discussion mainly revolved around the fact that sacred garments were being shown in the movie that shouldn't be shown. Never saw it, myself. So, I'll have to take your word on the rest.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
I'm not saying people shouldn't like it. Just that it wasn't my cup o' tea.
Yeah if you are Mormon, the movie is about as Sacriligeous as "Dogma" to a Catholic.
Except "Dogma" was satirical, Angels in America was very serious.
The acting was great. The production was great. The message of course is Tony Kushner's message.
If you are a non religious person or non Conservative, you will probably enjoy it.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)