'The Siege' Mentality
iran_c...@my-dejanews.com
fre...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> 'The Siege' Mentality
> http://www.bergen.com:80/yourtime/siege01199811012.htm
> Sunday, November 1, 1998
>
> By BOB IVRY
> Staff Writer
>
> According to director Edward Zwick, "The Siege"
> has been marketed both as an action-adventure
> shoot'em-up -- hoping to draw the 14-year-old boys
> who are the lifeblood of the box office -- and, to
> attract older couples looking for a date movie, as a
> "smart" political thriller.
>
> But the portrayal of the film's bad guys -- Islamic
> terrorists who have brought New York City to its
> knees -- has angered some Muslim groups, who
> argue that "The Siege" is anything but a "smart" film.
>
> Their gripe: Hollywood has treated them as little more
> than wild-eyed, cartoonish villains in far-fetched Good
> vs. Evil melodramas like "True Lies" and "Executive
> Decision," and does little better in "The Siege."
>
> "Moviegoers would be hard pressed to come up with
> a positive or even a neutral portrayal of a Muslim in a
> Hollywood movie," says Ibrahim Hooper, executive
> director of the Council on American-Islamic
> Relations in Washington, D.C. "Ironically, the only
> one I can think of is Denzel Washington as Malcolm
> X. But starting all the way back in 1924, with
> Rudolph Valentino as 'The Shiek,' Muslims have been
> portrayed as cartoon characters."
>
> read rest of articel at
> http://www.bergen.com:80/yourtime/siege01199811012.htm
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>
--
************************************************
Provided Courtesy of
The Iran Courier News
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Joe Megan
>In article <71onfq$jba$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> fre...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>> 'The Siege' Mentality
>> http://www.bergen.com:80/yourtime/siege01199811012.htm
>> Sunday, November 1, 1998
>>
>> By BOB IVRY
>> Staff Writer
>>
>>
>> But the portrayal of the film's bad guys -- Islamic
>> terrorists who have brought New York City to its
>> knees -- has angered some Muslim groups, who
>> argue that "The Siege" is anything but a "smart" film.
>>
I suggest you get used to it, guys. Christians in this country
have been portrayed negatively for years, why should
Muslim's be any different?
Vozhd
actually committed terrorist acts in the United States, and in New York City,
in fact. This makes Muslims FAIR GAME for being portrayed as terrorists in a
movie. The real fallacy is the presumption by activists that, if the movie
shows a member of group X as evil, without a counterbalancing "positive image,"
then it's saying all of group X are evil. I gravely doubt that such is any
moviemaker's intention, and if someone in the audience draws the conclusion, it
is that viewer's error, and not the studio's. No artist (maybe most movies
aren't art, but there's at least some resemblance) should be held responsible
for how idiots interpret his work, nor should he have to dumb down his product
so the idiot doesn't draw the wrong conclusion. In this particular case,
protesters and activists will be aggressively giving the other side, as is
their prerogative, but they shouldn't expect the studio to do their work for
them.
VO...@AOL.COM
Publishes UNCLE SAM's E-Zine
for the THINK 3 INSTITUTE
at http://members.tripod.com/~Think3/index.html
Michele317
shows a member of group X as evil, without a counterbalancing "positive image,"
then it's saying all of group X are evil.>>
i agree... and films can show positive images of group X for the next 10 years
and it won't change the negative perceptions many people have of group X.
Bill P.
-Who blew up the World Trade Center?
-Who commits acts of suicide bombings routinely?
-Who is distancing themselves from their leader because he is becoming
too moderate and doesn't want to anhilate Israel?
-Who pronounced a death sentence on a man for writing a book
portraying contrary views?
-Who demonstrate routinely in their streets shouting "death to the
USA" slogans?
-Who uses his family's oil fortune to finance acts of terrorism?
-Which people admit that their greatest wish is to wipe an entire
nation (their neighbor) off the face of the planet?
-Who blew up the marine barracks in Lebanon?
-Who took American hostages in Persia?
-Who blew up American embassies?
-Who invades his neighbor for the oil?
Ad Infiniteum, Ad Nauseum...
Of course that doesn't make all Muslims bad, but can you deny that the
above gives an ample basis for the stereotype? Who SHOULD the movie
industry use as bad guys? Canadians???
Cheers,
Bill Powers
bi...@pwrvideopain.com www.pwrvideopain.com
To check me out, take the "pain" out of the domain name.
For the benefit of Spambots everywhere:
webmaster@localhost
postmaster@localhost
Skins17a
>Of course that doesn't make all Muslims bad, but can you deny that the
>above gives an ample basis for the stereotype? Who SHOULD the movie
>industry use as bad guys? Canadians???
>Cheers,
>
>Bill Powers
>bi...@pwrvideopain.com www.pwrvideopain.com
>To check me out, take the "pain" out of the domain name.
>
>For the benefit of Spambots everywhere:
> webmaster@localhost
> postmaster@localhost
>
>
>
>
>
>
Damn Canuks. Always ruining our....uh.....something..........or
other.......with the.....Kids in the Hall........and...pamela....oy
Plain and Simple Cronan
> I suggest you get used to it, guys. Christians in this country
>have been portrayed negatively for years, why should
>Muslim's be any different?
Because Christians worship Satan.
P&SC
...known fact
Charles L Isbell
> Let's expose another fallacy. The evidence indicates that some Muslims have
> actually committed terrorist acts in the United States, and in New York City,
> in fact. This makes Muslims FAIR GAME for being portrayed as terrorists in a
> movie.
Actually, I would think anyone would be "fair game."
> The real fallacy is the presumption by activists that, if the movie
> shows a member of group X as evil, without a counterbalancing
> "positive image," then it's saying all of group X are evil.
I think most are concerned about larger trends. If group X "always"
plays Y, then you have a pattern. If Y is "evil" and there are no
counterbalanacing positive images, I think it's reasonable to point
that out.
--
Peace.
"There is a level of cowardice lower than that
of the conformist: the fashionable non-conformist."
- Ayn Rand
-\--/-
Don't just adopt opinions | \/ | Some of you are homeboys
develop them. | /\ | but only I am The Homeboy From hell
-/--\-
iran_c...@my-dejanews.com
vo...@aol.com (Vozhd) wrote:
> Let's expose another fallacy. The evidence indicates that some Muslims have
> actually committed terrorist acts in the United States, and in New York City,
> in fact. This makes Muslims FAIR GAME for being portrayed as terrorists in a
> movie
Really? Well I'm sure there are some Blacks who've committed rape. Then lets
have movies portraying all Blacks as suspected rapists. They're fair game. And
Israelis massacred civilians in a Palestinian village called Deir yassin.
They're fair game too. And a Christian guy named Timothy McVeigh blew up a
Federal building. Then Christians are all suspects. And there was a
mathematician named Kasinski (sp?) who was the Unabomber. Therefore them
mathematicians are all "fair game" too.... What FUN!
iran_c...@my-dejanews.com
movie showing them in a positive or even a neutral light. And why is it that
the actions of a few are attributed to the entire people for Group X, but the
actions of a few are not attributed to the entire people in Group Y or Z?
In article <19981104091210...@ng-fa2.aol.com>,
miche...@aol.com (Michele317) wrote:
> <<The real fallacy is the presumption by activists that, if the movie
> shows a member of group X as evil, without a counterbalancing "positive
image,"
> then it's saying all of group X are evil.>>
>
> i agree... and films can show positive images of group X for the next 10 years
> and it won't change the negative perceptions many people have of group X.
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
iran_c...@my-dejanews.com
-Who napalms semi-literate peasants -Who trains assasins and torturers at the
"School of the Americas" in Ft. Benning, GA. -Who massacres civilian
Palestinian women and children in Deir Yassin -Who massacres refugees in
Sabra & Shatilla - Who has legalized torture and hostage taking - Who has
blatanly violated the 4th Geneva Convention - Who has invaded their neighbors
with the stated purpose of causing terror in "Operation Grapes of Wrath" -
Who strafed fleeing ambulances - Who bombed the USS Liberty - Who has spied
on the US and turned the information over to the Soviets - Who claims to be
"Chosed by God" - Who claims to have a god-given right to eradicate and
entire people from their own homes - Who has bulldozed hundreds of
Palestinian villages to build Jewish-only housing on top of it - Who lays
claim on entire sovereign nations based on the Bible - Who mines the harbors
of other nations in contravention of international law - Who employed the
tactic of "bone breaking" to supress the intifada by sending soldiers
door-to-door and randomly beating people of a particular ethnicity - Who has
been repeatedly condemned by international human rights monitors while
claiming to be a democracy..
Ad naseum....
Works both ways.
al_...@my-dejanews.com
Video...@pwrvideopain.com (Bill P.) wrote:
> -Who killed the tourists in Egypt?
> -Who blew up the World Trade Center?
> -Who commits acts of suicide bombings routinely?
> -Who is distancing themselves from their leader because he is becoming
> too moderate and doesn't want to anhilate Israel?
> -Who pronounced a death sentence on a man for writing a book
> portraying contrary views?
> -Who demonstrate routinely in their streets shouting "death to the
> USA" slogans?
> -Who uses his family's oil fortune to finance acts of terrorism?
> -Which people admit that their greatest wish is to wipe an entire
> nation (their neighbor) off the face of the planet?
> -Who blew up the marine barracks in Lebanon?
> -Who took American hostages in Persia?
> -Who blew up American embassies?
> -Who invades his neighbor for the oil?
> Ad Infiniteum, Ad Nauseum...
>
> above gives an ample basis for the stereotype? Who SHOULD the movie
> industry use as bad guys? Canadians???
> Cheers,
What about the Indians? Now that they have exploded some nuclear bombs in the
desert and been accused of starting an arms race in the region...
Its not fair that we do not see any Indians or Hindus portrayed as bad guys...
PS I am originally from New Delhi, INDIA
--
Al Lal
http://www.angelfire.com/al/lal007/
Vozhd
The evidence indicates that some Muslims have
actually committed terrorist acts in the United States, and in New York City,
in fact. This makes Muslims FAIR GAME for being portrayed as terrorists in a
> Charles L Isbell <isb...@ai.mit.edu> replies:
>Actually, I would think anyone would be "fair game."
Well, yes, including Muslims and Arabs. I hope you don't mean that the
screenwriter should have used his imagination and made up a terrorist group of
no recognizable affiliation. I think the sort of story THE SIEGE apparently
intends to tell would lose a lot of its edge if the terrorists were a gang of
Ruritanians. It looks like the real subject of the film is to be some people's
overreaction in an environment of fear and hatred, and unfortunately that's all
too real as far as perceptions of Arabs and Muslims are concerned, which is
why, I dare say, Muslims are ideal for the terrorist bogeys in this picture.
Isbell adds:
>If Y is "evil" and there are no
>counterbalanacing positive images, I think it's reasonable to point that out.
Yes. I will never say don't protest. I intend always to say don't censor, so
as I see a censorious mood developing in some circles regarding THE SIEGE, I'm
bound to protest.
And let me say again that Hollywood is under no obligation whatsoever to
provide positive images for anyone, or to be balanced. It's a free country,
folks.
Brian John Wright
: Of course that doesn't make all Muslims bad, but can you deny that the
: above gives an ample basis for the stereotype? Who SHOULD the movie
: industry use as bad guys? Canadians???
I'd love to see that.
-Brian J. Wright, Canadian
"SWEET MERCIFUL CRAP!!!"
-Homer
Vozhd
>Really? Well I'm sure there are some Blacks who've committed rape. Then lets
>have movies portraying all Blacks as suspected rapists.
This is precisely the mistake I've been writing about. It is YOU who presume
from what you see on the screen that a movie is portraying all Blacks or all of
X as anything. The movie is saying no such thing. Stop generalizing and
movies will bother you less.
>Israelis massacred civilians in a Palestinian village called Deir yassin.
They're fair game too. And a Christian guy named Timothy McVeigh blew up a
Federal building. Then Christians are all suspects. And there was a
mathematician named Kasinski (sp?) who was the Unabomber. Therefore them
mathematicians are all "fair game" too.... What FUN!
Yes, yes, and yes. What's your point?
Vozhd
Yes and yes. This means it's entirely plausible to portray Americans and
Israelis as villains in movies. Do you intend to say Muslims and Arabs should
be exempt from this?
Vozhd
>But why is it that Group X is ONLY shown in a negative light - not a SINGLE
>movie showing them in a positive or even a neutral light. And why is it that
>the actions of a few are attributed to the entire people for Group X, but the
>actions of a few are not attributed to the entire people in Group Y or Z?
This is all generalization. Once again, it is your assumption as the
spectator, and not the argument of the filmmaker, that evil actions are
"attributed to the entire people" of any group.
Bill P.
>-WHO topples democratic governments to replace then with tin-pot dictators
>-Who napalms semi-literate peasants -Who trains assasins and torturers at the
>"School of the Americas" in Ft. Benning, GA. -Who massacres civilian
>Palestinian women and children in Deir Yassin -Who massacres refugees in
>Sabra & Shatilla - Who has legalized torture and hostage taking - Who has
>blatanly violated the 4th Geneva Convention - Who has invaded their neighbors
>with the stated purpose of causing terror in "Operation Grapes of Wrath" -
>Who strafed fleeing ambulances - Who bombed the USS Liberty - Who has spied
>on the US and turned the information over to the Soviets - Who claims to be
>"Chosed by God" - Who claims to have a god-given right to eradicate and
>entire people from their own homes - Who has bulldozed hundreds of
>Palestinian villages to build Jewish-only housing on top of it - Who lays
>claim on entire sovereign nations based on the Bible - Who mines the harbors
>of other nations in contravention of international law - Who employed the
>tactic of "bone breaking" to supress the intifada by sending soldiers
>door-to-door and randomly beating people of a particular ethnicity - Who has
>been repeatedly condemned by international human rights monitors while
>claiming to be a democracy..
>
Ah, now there's the rub. I never said that the Jewish state didn't
have its own shortcomings (although being surrounded by enemies on all
sides within miles of your capitol cities might understandably do
something to your collective psyche). You NOTABLY didn't answer my
only question of the post: Didn't all my examples provide ample and
understandable basis for the stereotype and lend credence to
Hollywoods choice of Muslims as bad guys? I'll answer for you... OF
COURSE they do! And again- OF COURSE that doesn't make all Muslims
bad, but when you get these widely disparate entities who commit
questionable acts under the auspices of Islam AND CLAIM THAT TO BE THE
CASE, then in my book that's deserving of some attention! Kazinski
didn't unabomb under the auspices of mathmeticians everywhere nor did
the Oklahoma Kid bomb under the auspices of Christianity. There's a
large school of thought out there that suggests Islam is about where
Christianity was a few hundred years ago during the Crusades and the
Inquisition. A very sad time for Christians. The difference being
that Islam doesn't have the military might or economic resources to
impose itself on the rest of the world or else it most certainly
would. Look at our friend in Iraq.
sim...@my-dejanews.com
The problem is that Arabs are never portrayed as anything but bad guys, and
the Israelies/extreme right wing Christians, etc. aren't subjected to the
same villification by Hollywood movies as the Muslims.
And, I think at least part of McVeigh's motivation was Christian zealotry.
Evelyn C. Leeper
> The problem is that Arabs are never portrayed as anything but bad guys, and
> the Israelies/extreme right wing Christians, etc. aren't subjected to the
> same villification by Hollywood movies as the Muslims.
I think the problem is that there is nothing wrong, individually, with
a scriptwriter deciding to make his villains members of Group X. The
problem arises when collectively members of Group X are portrayed
*only* as villains. As with many collective problems, this is
difficult to solve. One can only hope that some scriptwriter will hear
all the fuss and decide to make members of Group X the good buys.
Should we blame Lawrence Wright? Not particularly (IMHO). The best we
can do is provide positive support for people who swim *against* the
tide.
This means, I note in passing, that we support people who make films
with positive images of Group X members, even if those filmmakers are
not in group X themselves.
--
Evelyn C. Leeper | ele...@lucent.com
+1 732 957 2070 | http://www.geocities.com/Athens/4824
"Children of the future Age, Reading this indignant page:
Know that in a former time Love! sweet Love! was thought a crime." --Wm Blake
ELurio
Russia!
>-Who napalms semi-literate peasants -Who trains assasins and torturers at the
Argentina!
>Palestinian women and children in Deir Yassin? Nobody!
-Who massacres refugees in
>Sabra & Shatilla -Lebenon!
Who has legalized torture and hostage >taking - Who has blatanly violated the
>- Who has invaded their neighbors
with the stated purpose of causing terror in "Operation Grapes of Wrath"
Without that purpose, you may af a point.
>Who strafed fleeing ambulances -Pakistan! Who bombed the USS Liberty - Who has
spied
>on the US and turned the information over to the Soviets? Poland!!!
Bulgaria!!!! Romania!!! Mongolia!!!
Who claims to have a god-given right to eradicate and
>entire people from their own homes -
Rwanda!!!!!Belgium!!!!Serbia!!!!!
Who has bulldozed hundreds of
dozens....
Who lays
>claim on entire sovereign nations based on the Bible -The Vatican!!
Who mines the harbors
>of other nations in contravention of international law -China! Russia!
Who employed the
>tactic of "bone breaking" to supress the intifada by sending soldiers
>door-to-door and randomly beating people of a particular ethnicity -Israel!
But the intifada was illegal.
Who has
>been repeatedly condemned by international human rights monitors while
>claiming to be a democracy.Russia! China! Serbia! Kazahstan! Vietnam! Burma!
Tibet!
ooooooooo I think I passed!
eric l.
ELurio
problem arises when collectively members of Group X are portrayed
*only* as villains.>>
Guess what? One of the heroes in the Siege is an Arab!!!!!
<<Should we blame Lawrence Wright? Not particularly (IMHO). The best we
can do is provide positive support for people who swim *against* the
tide.>>
If you haven't seen the movie, check it out and come back to talk about how
Tony Shaloub is treated in the film.
eric l.
Anne Marsden
>
>What about the Indians? Now that they have exploded some nuclear bombs
in the
>desert and been accused of starting an arms race in the region...
>
>Its not fair that we do not see any Indians or Hindus portrayed as bad
guys...
>
>PS I am originally from New Delhi, INDIA
>
>--
>Al Lal
You missed Indiana Jones And The Whatsitsname of Thing. (The Palace of
Doom?) Mind you, I don't think they were Hindu Indians.
Anne M
Who was orignally British, and I challenge everyone to think of a movie
where the bad guy was white with a British accent (never happens).
Charles L Isbell
> >>The evidence indicates that some Muslims have
> >>actually committed terrorist acts in the United States, and in
> >>New York City, in fact. This makes Muslims FAIR GAME for being
> >>portrayed as terrorists in a movie.
>
> Well, yes, including Muslims and Arabs. I hope you don't mean that the
> screenwriter should have used his imagination and made up a
> terrorist group of no recognizable affiliation. I think the sort of
> story THE SIEGE apparently intends to tell would lose a lot of its
> edge if the terrorists were a gang of Ruritanians. It looks like
> the real subject of the film is to be some people's overreaction in
> an environment of fear and hatred, and unfortunately that's all
> too real as far as perceptions of Arabs and Muslims are concerned, which is
> why, I dare say, Muslims are ideal for the terrorist bogeys in this picture.
My point is merely that any group of folks is "fair game" regardless
of whether others who might look like them or come from the same
country have committed terrorist acts.
I haven't seen _The Siege_ yet but I wouldn't be surprised if any
faceless enemy--Muslims or otherwise--would work just as well for the
purposes of Scary Enemy(tm). It's possible that a homegrown terrorist
group would work well, too. All you need is a plausible motive. In
fact, you may not need an *explicit* motive for this kind of movie (I
don't know, not having seen the movie) to still work.
> Isbell adds:
> >If Y is "evil" and there are no
> >counterbalanacing positive images, I think it's reasonable to point
> >that out.
Just to avoid losing context, let me point out that there was a
sentence reading something to the effect of "...if X always seems to
play Y and...".
> Yes. I will never say don't protest. I intend always to say don't
> censor, so as I see a censorious mood developing in some circles
> regarding THE SIEGE, I'm bound to protest.
I'm not sure what you mean by censor here. It almost seems in this
context as if there's little distinction between how you're using it
and, say, protest. Could you help me see how you're distinguishing
the two?
> And let me say again that Hollywood is under no obligation whatsoever to
> provide positive images for anyone, or to be balanced. It's a free country,
> folks.
...nor is anyone else under any obligation to remain silent about
unbalanced presentations, nor is anyone prohibited from trying to
persuade Hollywood that it should be more balanced. Given all that,
I'm not sure why there's a need to bring up "obligations"... it seems
irrelevant.
Alex Crouvier
>
> My point is merely that any group of folks is "fair game" regardless
> of whether others who might look like them or come from the same
> country have committed terrorist acts.
Yeah, BUT BRAD PITT AS A RUTHLESS IRA TERRORIST IS ALSO A SEXY FREE
SPIRIT WITH PEOPLE MAGAZINE"S VOTE FOR THE BEST FLOWING BLONDE HAIR.
Chuck, you are a shallow observer of your own pop culture. THAT is to be
expected anyway <scoff>
Mark E. Smith
vo...@aol.com (Vozhd) wrote:
> And let me say again that Hollywood is under no obligation
> whatsoever to provide positive images for anyone, or to be
> balanced. It's a free country, folks.
Naturally. The studios are free to make movies any way they
like. And we're free to find fault with them, if there are
faults to be found.
The biggest problem with using Muslims as terrorists in a movie
is that it's lazy storytelling. If the plot doesn't require bad
guys to be Muslims, why not make them something else? Why not
posit some new kind of terrorist group that hasn't been
anticipated by the other characters? I mean, besides the obvious
reason that it would require actual creative thought.
--
Mark E. Smith <msm...@lvnworth.com>
Evelyn C. Leeper
Anne Marsden <amar...@home.com> wrote:
> Who was orignally British, and I challenge everyone to think of a movie
> where the bad guy was white with a British accent (never happens).
Any number of Peter Cushing movies in which he was Frankenstein (or
the Grand Moff Tarkin).
iran_c...@my-dejanews.com
In article <19981105103150.19776.00004465@ng-
iran_c...@my-dejanews.com
one movie in which Israelis are portrayed negatively.
In article <19981105103353...@ng-fa2.aol.com>,
vo...@aol.com (Vozhd) wrote:
> >From: iran_c...@my-dejanews.com
iran_c...@my-dejanews.com
fundamentalist states are US allies in the region - and this includes Israel.
Notably, the massacres in Deyr Yassin and the bombing of the King David Hotel
and the assasination of Count Bernadotte etc. by Israel was done in the name
of a creed or ideology - yet that creed or ideology is not similarly
demonized because of the actions of its claimed followers. Now, why is that?
Hmmmm?
iran_c...@my-dejanews.com
In article <19981105164840...@ng151.aol.com>,
elu...@aol.com (ELurio) wrote:
> << The
> problem arises when collectively members of Group X are portrayed
> *only* as villains.>>
>
> Guess what? One of the heroes in the Siege is an Arab!!!!!
>
iran_c...@my-dejanews.com
And then there was the whole Indiana Jones thing.
In article <71ra93$19$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
al_...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> to
Michele317
where the bad guy was white with a British accent (never happens).>>
sid and nancy :)
bla...@earthlink.net
Wright) wrote:
I would love to see a Jewish bad guy. but unfortunately, there are no
such things in the movie, because the jews would ban on sight any
jewish bad guy.
Norman Wilner
>On 5 Nov 1998 12:29:59 GMT, bjwr...@acs6.acs.ucalgary.ca (Brian John
>Wright) wrote:
>
>>Bill P. (Video...@pwrvideopain.com) wrote:
>>
>>: Of course that doesn't make all Muslims bad, but can you deny
>>: that the above gives an ample basis for the stereotype? Who
>>: SHOULD the movie industry use as bad guys? Canadians???
>>
>> I'd love to see that.
>
>such things in the movie, because the jews would ban on sight any
>jewish bad guy.
Which Jews would those be?
Incidentally, the terrorists in "The Siege" are Muslim fanatics because the
threat in the film has to be the threat of a suicide bomber - the most
implacable and terrifying enemy Americans can conceive, since no amount of
bargaining or persuasion will stop them once they decide to blow themselves up.
Reg'lar American bombers tend to plant bombs and leave the scene.
Norm Wilner
Starweek Magazine
al_...@my-dejanews.com
> in the
> >desert and been accused of starting an arms race in the region...
> >
> >Its not fair that we do not see any Indians or Hindus portrayed as bad
> guys...
> >
> >PS I am originally from New Delhi, INDIA
> >
> >--
> >Al Lal
>
> You missed Indiana Jones And The Whatsitsname of Thing. (The Palace of
> Doom?) Mind you, I don't think they were Hindu Indians.
>
> Anne M
> where the bad guy was white with a British accent (never happens).
>
>
I am not Hindu anyway (I was born one but I dont follow any religion), so I am
not offended by the fact that Hindu's do not play bad guys. Besides, with
Gandhi's reputation and non-violence etc. it would be very hard to portray
To be fair, members of all groups (religions, races, nationalities,
profession, sex etc.) must be badly treated. Then there will be no
discrimination.
I treat everyone harshly. Therefore no one can accuse me of discrimination.:)
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
vidkun_...@my-dejanews.com
iran_c...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> Name me one movie in which Arabs and or moslems are portrayed postively and
> one movie in which Israelis are portrayed negatively.
>
Say, how comical it would be if Jewish extremists terror-bombed the US. Which
is more likely, Arab or Israeli terrorists blasting away?
I thought the original issue was Hollywood's alleged bias against the
Arab/Muslim community. Why on earth has it suddenly turned into an
Arab-Israeli conflict?
I can't help but enquire about your attitude and views regarding the
Israelis/Jews.
Michele317
such things in the movie, because the jews would ban on sight any
jewish bad guy.>>
like 'bugsy'?
Charles L Isbell
> Charles L Isbell wrote:
> > My point is merely that any group of folks is "fair game" regardless
> > of whether others who might look like them or come from the same
> > country have committed terrorist acts.
> Yeah, BUT BRAD PITT AS A RUTHLESS IRA TERRORIST IS ALSO A SEXY FREE
> SPIRIT WITH PEOPLE MAGAZINE"S VOTE FOR THE BEST FLOWING BLONDE HAIR.
That's certainly true.
On the other hand, that probably isn't true of Brad Pitt's terrorist
in _12 Monkeys_. He had to work hard for the money, though.
> Chuck, you are a shallow observer of your own pop culture. THAT is to be
> expected anyway <scoff>
Who's Chuck? And is it really his pop culture?
Vozhd
>The movie is the one which generalizes.
This is re: my comment that it is the viewers, including the hostile ones, who
generalize about a movie's message, or assume that the movie generalizes.
Let's be more specific about this: unless, at some point in THE SIEGE, a
character with authorial authority states that "all Arabs are terrorists" or
"all Muslims are terrorists," the film itself is not generalizing. Even if the
preponderance of Arab/Muslim characters shown in the film are terrorists or
sympathizers, it is the viewer who assumes, not the director who declares, that
this means all of that ethnicity are terrorists. Therefore it becomes the
viewer's responsibility not to generalize or jump to conclusions. This is not
too much to ask. At least, it had better not be. . . .
sim...@my-dejanews.com
ele...@lucent.com wrote:
> In article <71stqe$2a8$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <sim...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> > The problem is that Arabs are never portrayed as anything but bad guys, and
> > the Israelies/extreme right wing Christians, etc. aren't subjected to the
> > same villification by Hollywood movies as the Muslims.
>
> I think the problem is that there is nothing wrong, individually, with
> problem arises when collectively members of Group X are portrayed
> difficult to solve. One can only hope that some scriptwriter will hear
> all the fuss and decide to make members of Group X the good buys.
>
> can do is provide positive support for people who swim *against* the
> tide.
>
> with positive images of Group X members, even if those filmmakers are
> not in group X themselves.
That's pretty much what I was trying to say, Evelyn, only you said it much
better. Thanks.
sim...@my-dejanews.com
"Anne Marsden" <amar...@home.com> wrote:
>
> Anne M
> Who was orignally British, and I challenge everyone to think of a movie
> where the bad guy was white with a British accent (never happens).
>
>
The Lion King (accent part, anyway)
White Mischief
ELurio
such things in the movie, because the jews would ban on sight any
jewish bad guy.>>
Ron Perlman plays alot of heavies. There was a film this year called "A Price
Above Rubies" which trashed Judaism.
There are plenty of films which came out over the years with Jews as villians,
they are just not villians because they are Jews.
eric l.
ELurio
> Name me one movie in which Arabs and or moslems are portrayed postively>
> and one movie in which Israelis are portrayed negatively.
eric l.
ELurio
of a creed or ideology - >>
You think that that nazi's "compromise" i.e. total Israeli surrender and the
banning of Jews from their holy places in return for a peaceful evacuation back
to Europe would have helped matters?
It was wartime, remember and the new notion of enemy leaders being safe from
attack didn't wash then as it doesn't wash now.....but this ng's about movies.
The people who made the Siege bent over backwards to be evenhanded.
eric l.
eur...@my-dejanews.com
miche...@aol.com (Michele317) wrote:
> <<I challenge everyone to think of a movie
> where the bad guy was white with a British accent (never happens).>>
>
>
"Masterminds" for one. I'm sure there are more.
Charles L Isbell
> >From: iran_c...@my-dejanews.com
> >The movie is the one which generalizes.
>
> This is re: my comment that it is the viewers, including the hostile
> ones, who generalize about a movie's message, or assume that the
> movie generalizes.
It is easy to argue that a *particular* instance says nothing;
however, I suspect the point here is that it is yet another example in
a larger pattern.
> Let's be more specific about this: unless, at some point in THE SIEGE, a
> character with authorial authority states that "all Arabs are terrorists" or
> "all Muslims are terrorists," the film itself is not generalizing.
Leaving _The Seige_ aside, don't you think this is an amazingly high
standard? It seems to me that you're essentially saying that one can
actually change one's message simply by being subtle. In fact, I'm
not sure if _Birth of a Nation_ even passes the test as you've
described it above.
> Even if the
> preponderance of Arab/Muslim characters shown in the film are terrorists or
> sympathizers, it is the viewer who assumes, not the director who
> declares, that
> this means all of that ethnicity are terrorists. Therefore it becomes the
> viewer's responsibility not to generalize or jump to conclusions.
> This is not
> too much to ask. At least, it had better not be. . . .
Again, ignoring _The Seige_ in particular, you seem to be ignoring the
fact that an author can lead the audience to a conclusion without
actually stating it. This seems counter-intuitive.
--
Peace.
"Freedom is not something that anybody can be given;
freedom is something people take and people
are as free as they want to be."
- James Baldwin
MatMan
Middle-East Terrorists" because right now, Middle Eastern Terrorists
actually are running around chucking bombs and killing people at an alarming
rate. For the film to make any sort of impact, the plot has to be based on
a realistic situation, and blone-haired blue-eyed Canadians trying to "smash
the System" just isn't going to do that.
You want people to stop making "wacky dark-skinned terrorist movies"? That
will happen where there are fewer wacky dark-skinned terrorists. This isn't
a remotely racist post...it's just pointing out they "whys" of this film.
If the movie still bothers you, well...I hope you enjoy The Wizard of Oz
this weekend.
Alex Crouvier
>
> <<I would love to see a Jewish bad guy. but unfortunately, there are no
> such things in the movie, because the jews would ban on sight any
> jewish bad guy.>>
>
Yea, but he is so charming, sexy, get to screw the babe (on and
offscreen) and he is somekind of a visionary, a hero, flawed one yes,
but nonetheless a hero who stands up for something the greatness of
AmeriKan dream. A Jewish hero. Uncrupulous, violent, vile but sexy,
charming, like brad Pitt in that Tibet movie and SEVEN, unshaven evil
white guys with violent tendency but cute, blonde-sexy, sexiest man
alive, free-spirit, dangerous yet romantic, dreamy, vile, violent,
trash-talker, callous yet enigmatic, pouty-sexy, sexual, cute, sexist
man alive.
Alex Crouvier
>
> <<I would love to see a Jewish bad guy. but unfortunately, there are no
> such things in the movie, because the jews would ban on sight any
> jewish bad guy.>>
>
> Above Rubies" which trashed Judaism.
>
> There are plenty of films which came out over the years with Jews as villians,
> they are just not villians because they are Jews.
>
> eric l.
How many films depict Arabs as normal folks with tradition, human
feelings, sense of family? How many, you hypocrite.
Alex Crouvier
> this means all of that ethnicity are terrorists. Therefore it becomes the
> viewer's responsibility not to generalize or jump to conclusions. This is not
> too much to ask. At least, it had better not be. . . .
Is it the viewer's responsibility to tune out of shows like JERRY
SPRINGER? They? Responsible. Ed Zwick is exploiting public's fear and
insecurity, like the way Spielberg negotiate the paradox within making a
commercial and Oscar-worthy movie in SPR. It's got lotsa blood-n-guts
action but it is noble <puke!>
Scott Burright
> What few people seem to understand is that the film uses "Generic
> Middle-East Terrorists" because right now, Middle Eastern Terrorists
> actually are running around chucking bombs and killing people at an alarming
> rate. For the film to make any sort of impact, the plot has to be based on
> a realistic situation, and blone-haired blue-eyed Canadians trying to "smash
> the System" just isn't going to do that.
>
> You want people to stop making "wacky dark-skinned terrorist movies"? That
> will happen where there are fewer wacky dark-skinned terrorists. This isn't
> a remotely racist post...
Oh my God, you are such an idiot, and you don't even know it.
Tell me, MatMan, what do we call a bomb attack that kills civilians?
Simple question, yes? Careful how you answer.
--Scott Burright
Norman Wilner
>Michele317 wrote:
>>
>> <<I would love to see a Jewish bad guy. but unfortunately, there are no
>> such things in the movie, because the jews would ban on sight any
>> jewish bad guy.>>
>>
>
>Yea, but he is so charming, sexy, get to screw the babe (on and
>offscreen) and he is somekind of a visionary, a hero, flawed one yes,
>but nonetheless a hero who stands up for something the greatness of
>AmeriKan dream. A Jewish hero. Uncrupulous, violent, vile but sexy,
>charming, like brad Pitt in that Tibet movie and SEVEN, unshaven evil
>white guys with violent tendency but cute, blonde-sexy, sexiest man
>alive, free-spirit, dangerous yet romantic, dreamy, vile, violent,
>trash-talker, callous yet enigmatic, pouty-sexy, sexual, cute, sexist
>man alive.
So, if Warren Beatty plays a Jewish gangster, it makes him as accessible as ...
Brad Pitt playing ... an Austrian affiliated with the Nazis?
You're losing it, Alex. I mean, seriously.
Norm Wilner
Starweek Magazine
Alex Crouvier
No, Norman, you're quick to judge. I am talking abt the way Hollywood
gives three dimensionality to caucasian roles but NEVER to minority with
the exception, maybe, to blacks. How many times you have seen a charming
Arab terrorist in POPULAR BIG BUDGET MOVIE with moral conflict and
sexuality? When was the last time this is true? Who started terrorism?
Who gave them the weapons to do so?
Question everything.
timothy evans
<where the bad guy was white with a >
<British accent (never happens).">>
Blue Thunder
--------------------------------------------------------
Dim eyes are the concomitants of old age, and shortsightedness in those
that are eyes of a republic fortells a declining state.
Anne Bradstreet
--------------------------------------------------------
Lax links
http://www.banditsboosters.org
http://www.bandits.com
Badminton- http://www.cgicafe.com/~bt829
--------------------------------------------------------
Howard Brazee
> > one movie in which Israelis are portrayed negatively.
> >
>
> is more likely, Arab or Israeli terrorists blasting away?
I recently read a novel where the bad buy was a Jewish terrorist. The
leader of the band called himself a Macabe (sp?), so I guess it was
secular rather than religious. Good novel though, I can't remember the
title.
> I thought the original issue was Hollywood's alleged bias against the
> Arab/Muslim community. Why on earth has it suddenly turned into an
> Arab-Israeli conflict?
It's easy. You don't have to create complicated or unbelievable
motivations (did anybody really believe that the bad guys in THE ROCK
were sufficiently motivated to destroy San Francisco?). Hollywood is
rarely concerned with the motivations of bad guys when they use
terrorists, they just want a sufficiently powerful foil for the good
guy.
Without much work.
Howard Brazee
where the Irish are the good guys and the Brits are bad.
It is interesting to watch the post-USSR spy genre change.
Howard Brazee
> feelings, sense of family? How many, you hypocrite.
There aren't very many movies which depict anybody from groups other
than the target audience as such. What's the story?
Even when it's the target group it is more often satire than not.
Howard Brazee
> Arab terrorist in POPULAR BIG BUDGET MOVIE with moral conflict and
> sexuality? When was the last time this is true? Who started terrorism?
> Who gave them the weapons to do so?
If he's on our side, he's by definition a "freedom fighter". I imagine
the Turks called the people in LAWRENCE OF ARABIA terrorists, or some
equivalent.
Vozhd
>The biggest problem with using Muslims as terrorists in a movie
>is that it's lazy storytelling.
Since when is realism lazy? Some Muslims have committed terroristic acts.
There is no reason not to portray terrorists as Muslims except to be "p.c." In
the case of THE SIEGE, the kind of creativity you seem to be asking for would
look like you were ducking the issues.
>If the plot doesn't require bad
>guys to be Muslims, why not make them something else?
I think that THE SIEGE requires Arabs as the terrorists because the
round-up/detention angle has that extra chilling resonance when the targets are
of another race. I don't see the Army arresting Irishmen or Serbs en masse,
but it unfortunately seems more plausible in the case of Arab-Americans.
>Why not posit some new kind of terrorist group that hasn't been anticipated
by the other characters? I mean, besides the obvious reason that it would
require actual creative thought.
If THE SIEGE were just an action potboiler (and maybe it will prove no more
than that when I see it sometime this week), you could be as creative in
casting your villians as you please, because that sort of creativity livens up
those sorts of fantasy stories. I suspect that Zwick and his writers had more
serious and relevant intentions, however they turned out, and needed to keep
more of a grip on reality. Like it or not, a lot of people view Arabs and
Muslims as terrorist bogeymen, and THE SIEGE seems to be playing off that
rather than inciting it.
Vozhd
>Leaving _The Seige_ aside, don't you think this is an amazingly high standard?
It seems to me that you're essentially saying that one can actually change
one's message simply by being subtle. In fact, I'm not sure if _Birth of a
Nation_ even passes the test as you've described it above.
Have you seen THE BIRTH? I have. It wears its advocacy on its sleeve. It is
DW Griffith's and Thomas Dixon's explicit interpretation of US History, and the
verdict on Blacks is harsh. It is inescapably clear that Griffith regarded any
grant of power to Blacks as an evil thing, and that he thought Black people
incapable and unworthy of political existence. Sight unseen, I can guess
pretty certainly that THE SIEGE is nowhere near THE BIRTH's league, thank
goodness.
Norman Wilner
>Norman Wilner wrote:
>>
>> Alex Crouvier wrote in message <36438E...@geocities.com>...
>> >Michele317 wrote:
>> >>
>> >> <<I would love to see a Jewish bad guy. but unfortunately, there are no
>> >> such things in the movie, because the jews would ban on sight any
>> >> jewish bad guy.>>
>> >>
>> >> like 'bugsy'?
>> >
>> >Yea, but he is so charming, sexy, get to screw the babe (on and
>> >offscreen) and he is somekind of a visionary, a hero, flawed one yes,
>> >but nonetheless a hero who stands up for something the greatness of
>> >AmeriKan dream. A Jewish hero. Uncrupulous, violent, vile but sexy,
>> >charming, like brad Pitt in that Tibet movie and SEVEN, unshaven evil
>> >white guys with violent tendency but cute, blonde-sexy, sexiest man
>> >alive, free-spirit, dangerous yet romantic, dreamy, vile, violent,
>> >trash-talker, callous yet enigmatic, pouty-sexy, sexual, cute, sexist
>> >man alive.
>>
>> So, if Warren Beatty plays a Jewish gangster, it makes him as accessible as
...
>> Brad Pitt playing ... an Austrian affiliated with the Nazis?
>>
>> You're losing it, Alex. I mean, seriously.
>
>gives three dimensionality to caucasian roles but NEVER to minority with
>Arab terrorist in POPULAR BIG BUDGET MOVIE with moral conflict and
>sexuality? When was the last time this is true? Who started terrorism?
>Who gave them the weapons to do so?
>
Uh-huh. Read your rant again. You weren't talking about that, at least not in
any coherent fashion.
Have you actually seen "The Siege", by the way? Because the questions you ask
are the questions the movie wants to try to answer. I think you might like it.
Norm Wilner
Starweek Magazine
a tuber
His point still seems valid.
If a movie is about a country's military bombing a Middle East city,
the USA would be a believable candidate (given the right military/political
situation).
If the movie is about terrorist activities against Americans, then
certain Middle Easterners would seem to be believable candidates.
In a movie as implausible as "The Siege", the writers try to make
all the details as believable as possible.
-Dan Damouth
Raptor
> The biggest problem with using Muslims as terrorists in a movie
> guys to be Muslims, why not make them something else? Why not
> posit some new kind of terrorist group that hasn't been
> anticipated by the other characters? I mean, besides the obvious
> reason that it would require actual creative thought.
Americans are all pretty familiar with the extremist Muslim terrorists. It
makes the story more believable, which is what most movie-makers strive for.
The Siege could have been written about domestic terrorists, but then you'd hear
all kinds of bitching from militia groups. It could have been written about
Japanese terrorists, but then you'd hear from Japanese. Pro-life terorrists,
anti-abortion crusaders would be pissed. Peruvian terrorists would have the
Peruvians up in arms (so to speak).
Fictitious terrorists would probably piss some group off too, but they'd also
feel a lot less real.
--
Lynn Wallace
I cannot help it if I think you're funny when you're mad.
B. Naked Ladies
http://www.xmission.com/~lawall/reality.html
Alex Crouvier
Well, till then, acknowledge it is a cheap exploitation of fear by
Hollywood. Why defend Hollywoodism? Come on, Brave and Fair American
al_...@my-dejanews.com
If you want to see a good movie where the Englishmen are bad bad guys, and the
Irish are the good guys try MICHAEL COLLINS from NEIL JORDAN.
--
Al Lal
http://www.angelfire.com/al/lal007/
t. cruise
<troj...@geocities.com> wrote:
>How many films depict Arabs as normal folks with tradition, human
>feelings, sense of family? How many, you hypocrite.
Correct me if I have the wrong impression of the arab culture. But, I
don't think that it's possible for many modern Americans to view a
culture where women are viewed as chattel, with few or no rights, as
"normal folks" with a "sense of family."
T.C.
TIMOTHY GUEGUEN
: In article <71tnhv$dpq$1...@usenet45.supernews.com>,
: "Anne Marsden" <amar...@home.com> wrote:
: >
: > Anne M
: > Who was orignally British, and I challenge everyone to think of a movie
: > where the bad guy was white with a British accent (never happens).
: >
: The Man Who Knew Too Little.
: The Lion King (accent part, anyway)
: White Mischief
And lets not forget the James Bond movies Diamonds Are Forever,
Goldeneye, The Man With the Golden Gun, and Tomorrow Never Dies, all of
which featured main villains who had British accents and were played by
"white" actors.
tim gueguen 101867
Bryant Frazer
: The Siege could have been written about domestic terrorists, but then you'd hear
: all kinds of bitching from militia groups.
Actually, it couldn't have. One of the key plot points in the film is that
the military is going from door to door in Brooklyn rounding up everyone
who fits the terrorist profile -- Muslims between the age of 15 and 30.
The film needs terrorists who are easily identifiable in terms of race,
and militia terrorists or pro-life terrorists wouldn't be so easy to pick
out of a crowd.
The film actually goes out of its way -- way out of its way -- to make
exactly the same point that those who protest the film want to make, about
the cruelty and unhealthiness of scapegoating an entire race over the
violent actions of a few members of that group of people. That doesn't
mean that I think the film itself is very good. The dialogue, in
particular, is almost desperately bad, and the never-trust-a-Muslim climax
sorta mitigates the earlier points about stereotyping an entire race.
-bf-
DEEP FOCUS (Movie Reviews)
http://www.panix.com/~bfrazer/flicker/
"We can't stop here -- this is bat country!"
Albert Stokes
Norman Wilner wrote in message <3643f...@diana.idirect.com>...
>Alex Crouvier wrote in message <3643B0...@geocities.com>...
>>Norman Wilner wrote:
>>>
>>> Alex Crouvier wrote in message <36438E...@geocities.com>...
>>> >Michele317 wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> <<I would love to see a Jewish bad guy. but unfortunately, there are
no
>>> >> such things in the movie, because the jews would ban on sight any
>>> >> jewish bad guy.>>
>>> >>
>>> >> like 'bugsy'?
Felixth...@hotmail.com
years ago to a modern movie which has no
doubt employed a thin veneer of p.c. to
counter charges of racism - it is without a
doubt a racist movie and was much more
so before the Arab organizations managed
to get some truly offending bits cut out.
This was nothing more than a disgusting
display of Hollywood hate-mongering
under a transparent cloak of righteousness.
There is little point claiming that the
movie is trying to oppose racism and Arab-
bashing based on one Uncle-Tom character
when the whole movie does nothing but
associate Islam, religious practices and even
mosques with murder and mayhem. Don't
be an apologist. Even the Washington Post
saw through that.
In article <
19981106231029...@ng27.aol.co
m>,
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Felixth...@hotmail.com
in a somewhat likeable light - and their
crimes are not attributed to all Irish people.
However, the same is not true of Arabs or
Moslems portrayed in Hollywood. At best
you'll get a thin veneer of p.c. like in THe
Siege - but it is quite obvious. There has
never been a single movie from Holywood
- not ONE - which portrays Moslems and
Arabs in a positive light. Never. Now, I
wonder why that is.....
In article <3643B0A6...@home.com>,
Howard Brazee <
NOSPAM...@home.com> wrote:
> There are some movies where the terrorists are Irish. And even a few
> where the Irish are the good guys and the Brits are bad.
>
> It is interesting to watch the post-USSR spy genre change.
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Chriwor
> Who was orignally British, and I challenge everyone to think >of a movie
> where the bad guy was white with a British accent (never >happens).
Peter Lawford as the racist British army officer
in Exodus?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
"Wha
Alex Crouvier
>
> sim...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> : In article <71tnhv$dpq$1...@usenet45.supernews.com>,
> : "Anne Marsden" <amar...@home.com> wrote:
> : >
> : > Anne M
> : > where the bad guy was white with a British accent (never happens).
> : >
> : The Man Who Knew Too Little.
> : The Lion King (accent part, anyway)
> : White Mischief
> And lets not forget the James Bond movies Diamonds Are Forever,
> Goldeneye, The Man With the Golden Gun, and Tomorrow Never Dies, all of
> which featured main villains who had British accents and were played by
> "white" actors.
>
> tim gueguen 101867
Yea, but there si also the sexy, charming, white lothario Sean Connery.
there is no doubt every villain out there has been portrayed by every
other race but outside white, Hispanic and black in American popular
culture how many decent, normal, sensible human beings? There are a
large proportion of these level-headed humans of other race, you know.
I'm askign Hollywood to be fair and I'm asking the intelliegnt people in
this Usenet to acknowledge the severely "unbaalanced" scale here. We're
talking abt popular culture here (which at this point is powerful enough
to shape the opinions and outlook of Middle Americans) not the various
fine International cinema that comes from Iran, China, Japan and South
America once in a while.
Alex Crouvier
I'm also talking about Arab-Americans. But who cares, right, they are
all alike
Norman Wilner
<7227t7$lnm$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>
>In article <3643B0A6...@home.com>,
> Howard Brazee <
>NOSPAM...@home.com> wrote:
>> There are some movies where the terrorists are Irish. And even a few
>> where the Irish are the good guys and the Brits are bad.
>>
>> It is interesting to watch the post-USSR spy genre change.
>>
>But even then the Irish bad guys are shown
>in a somewhat likeable light - and their
>crimes are not attributed to all Irish people.
>However, the same is not true of Arabs or
>Moslems portrayed in Hollywood. At best
>you'll get a thin veneer of p.c. like in THe
>Siege - but it is quite obvious. There has
>never been a single movie from Holywood
>- not ONE - which portrays Moslems and
>Arabs in a positive light. Never. Now, I
>wonder why that is.....
You want one? "Species". Forest Whitaker's character appears to be an observant
Muslim, though no attention is called to it. And he's one of the good guys.
There's also David Suchet's character in "A Perfect Murder", a homicide
detective who may or may not be a Muslim but is certainly depicted as an Arab.
He's also depicted as the only truly decent and morally upstanding character in
the film.
Norm Wilner
Starweek Magazine
Howard Brazee
was obviously someone who pretended he was crazy - which means he really
WAS crazy (by my lights, at least). He showed that he was a Jew, which
I would think wouldn't make Jews look good. Except I noticed that most
of the producers and such had Jewish names too.
Looking at movies which take place in Muslum and/or Arabic countries, I
see LAWRENCE OF ARABIA (which made Turks look bad, but not Arabs),
RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, (which made Germans look bad, but not
Egyptians). I am trying to think of others.
I know that Indians make more movies than Americans. I haven't seen any
of them, but I imagine most of their good guys are Indians. In Chinese
movies I have seen, most of their good guys are Chinese. Chinese
Kung-Fu movies often have bad Americans.
Paul Richardson
> The real fallacy is the presumption by activists that, if the movie
> shows a member of group X as evil, without a counterbalancing "positive image,"
> then it's saying all of group X are evil.
What's ironic about THE SIEGE is that it *does* have a counterbalancing positive
image in Tony Shalhoub, who plays Frank, one of the good guys! If anybody should
be complaining about this movie, it's white people. We come out looking pretty
bad.
--
"Writers block is a fancy term made up by whiners so they can have an excuse to
drink alcohol."
-Steve Martin, "Writing is Easy!"
Remove NOSPAM from my email address to reply.
Paul Richardson
> Who was orignally British, and I challenge everyone to think of a movie
> where the bad guy was white with a British accent (never happens).
Just about every James Bond movie.
Rupert Everett is the villain in the upcoming INSPECTOR GADGET.
Paul Richardson
> I am not Hindu anyway (I was born one but I dont follow any religion), so I am
> not offended by the fact that Hindu's do not play bad guys. Besides, with
> Gandhi's reputation and non-violence etc. it would be very hard to portray
Wasn't Gandhi assassinated by a Hindu?
Paul Richardson
> I would love to see a Jewish bad guy. but unfortunately, there are no
> such things in the movie, because the jews would ban on sight any
> jewish bad guy.
Try PI.
Paul Richardson
> How many films depict Arabs as normal folks with tradition, human
> feelings, sense of family? How many, you hypocrite.
To give THE SIEGE credit, one character (Tony Shalhoub's Frank) goes to church, has
a wife and kid, and is shown as three dimensional. Of course, every other Arab that
has a line is a terrorist.
Paul Richardson
> There is little point claiming that the
> movie is trying to oppose racism and Arab-
> bashing based on one Uncle-Tom character
Is Frank is such an "Uncle Tom," why does he quit in disgust, along with the line
"I'm not your sand nigger!"
matth...@my-dejanews.com
chr...@aol.com (Chriwor) wrote:
> Anne Marsden wrote:
> > Who was orignally British, and I challenge everyone to think >of a movie
> > where the bad guy was white with a British accent (never >happens).
>
> in Exodus?
If there weren't movies with such villains, what would Charles Dance do for a
living?
Reagen Sulewski
wrote:
>
>>
>>What about the Indians? Now that they have exploded some nuclear bombs
>in the
>>desert and been accused of starting an arms race in the region...
>>
>>Its not fair that we do not see any Indians or Hindus portrayed as bad
>guys...
>>
>>PS I am originally from New Delhi, INDIA
>>
>>--
>>Al Lal
>
>You missed Indiana Jones And The Whatsitsname of Thing. (The Palace of
>Doom?) Mind you, I don't think they were Hindu Indians.
>
>Anne M
>Who was orignally British, and I challenge everyone to think of a movie
>where the bad guy was white with a British accent (never happens).
>
>
That's pretty easy, actually, Tommorow Never Dies.
>
>
Vozhd
>This was nothing more than a disgusting
>display of Hollywood hate-mongering
>under a transparent cloak of righteousness.
>There is little point claiming that the
>movie is trying to oppose racism and Arab-
>bashing based on one Uncle-Tom character
>when the whole movie does nothing but
>associate Islam, religious practices and even
>mosques with murder and mayhem. Don't
>be an apologist. Even the Washington Post
>saw through that.
I haven't been an apologist for THE SIEGE. That's because I think it has
nothing to apologize for. When I see it, I might change my opinion as far as
aesthetics are concerned, but whether it's the liberal cautionary tale some see
in it or the racist diatribe of Arab-Americans' worst fears, neither the film
nor its creators have any moral responsibility to make a more sensitive, more
tolerant, more balanced, more whatever sort of movie. Think what you will of
it, and my answer to you is "tough."
al_...@my-dejanews.com
This movie was trying realy hard to be multi-cultural and show some
diversity, but unforunately I found A Perfect Murder's attemps at
"GLOABILISM' to be quite pathetic.
Having Gwyneth Paltrow work for the United Nations, and be friendly with an
Arab didnt impress me. Especially pathetic was the fact that Gwyneth
Paltrow's best friend is played by an Indian, Sarita Choudry: put she plays a
Mexican, Rachel Martinez!
Holloywood should stick to making entertaining movies and not engage in
laughable attempts at diversity and globalism.
Even more comedic was the movies attempt to keep up with the latest trends in
wall street. Michael Douglas plays a trader. Recently many highly
leveragred closed funds have collapsed due to their bets on the direction of
bonds, currencies (more correctly the spreads) not working out. Long-Term
Capital Management was one of the recent victims.
Globalism and Wall Street - HAH! The film should have stuck to the suspense
of love, betrayal, and murder etc.
I would like to see one good film with global politics and economics playing
a good central role...
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
meowfe...@my-dejanews.com
I guess you've never heard of the JDL and secondly, is it only terrorism when
it happens to the US? What about all the Palestinians being terrorized
everyday and LEGALLY TORTURED in Israel - why no movies about that? Hmmm?
jcni...@fullnet.net
bt...@webtv.net (timothy evans) wrote:
> "I challenge everyone to think of a movie >
> <where the bad guy was white with a >
> <British accent (never happens).">>
>
Star Trek: Generations, Rush Hour, Conspiracy Theory.
Wayne Throop
: But even then the Irish bad guys are shown in a somewhat likeable
: light - and their crimes are not attributed to all Irish people.
: However, the same is not true of Arabs or Moslems portrayed in
: Hollywood. At best you'll get a thin veneer of p.c. like in THe
: Siege - but it is quite obvious. There has never been a single movie
: from Holywood - not ONE - which portrays Moslems and Arabs in a
: positive light. Never.
"Sliding Doors", to name just one recent one.
This is not to disagree that Arab/Moslem ethnic/religeous groups
get the bad guy role disproportionately. But "never a positive portrayal"
is far, far too strong; so much so as to be significantly inaccurate.
--
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Wayne Throop
:: portrayed as bad guys...
: rsul...@home.com (Reagen Sulewski)
: You missed Indiana Jones And The Whatsitsname of Thing. (The Palace
: of Doom?) Mind you, I don't think they were Hindu Indians.
Technically (IIRC) they were "thugee", which is sort of a
hindu heresy; leaving the implications of the human sacrifice
and the worship of death out of it, thugee is to hindu roughly
as lutheran is to roman catholic. Or maybe LDS to RC.
I emphasize: roughly, and IIRC.
Charles L Isbell
> From: Charles L Isbell <isb...@ai.mit.edu>
> >Leaving _The Seige_ aside, don't you think this is an amazingly
> >high standard? It seems to me that you're essentially saying that
> >one can actually change one's message simply by being subtle. In
> >fact, I'm not sure if _Birth of a Nation_ even passes the test as
> >you've described it above.
>
> Have you seen THE BIRTH? I have.
personally attacked by the whole movie. Also, as a story, I'm a
little... disappointed... at the lack of historical accuracy and
balance.
>It wears its advocacy on its sleeve. It is DW Griffith's and Thomas
>Dixon's explicit interpretation of US History, and the verdict on
>Blacks is harsh. It is inescapably clear that Griffith regarded any
>grant of power to Blacks as an evil thing, and that he thought Black
>people incapable and unworthy of political existence. Sight unseen,
>I can guess pretty certainly that THE SIEGE is nowhere near THE
>BIRTH's league, thank goodness.
Ah, but here's the rub. As I recall, they don't actually come out and
*say* such, it's just the rather obvious conclusion.
To be fair here, let's remember what you stated as your standard:
vo...@aol.com (Vozhd) writes:
>Let's be more specific about this: unless, at some point in THE SIEGE, a
>character with authorial authority states that "all Arabs are terrorists" or
>"all Muslims are terrorists," the film itself is not generalizing.
Well, I think this is an extraordinarily high standard. I think you
could easily make _Birth of a Nation_ and be a lot more subtle about
your conclusion without changing the basic conclusion that is to be
drawn from the story.
By contrast, in your explanation above you suggest that it is entirely
possible to lead the viewer to an obvious conclusion without explictly
stating it (in fact, a lot of folks on this ng seem to appreciate it
when filmakers go out of there way to do just that).
I don't think this suggestion is compatible with your standard (btw,
it is also the case that an authority figure could come out and *say*
such a thing and the point of the movie could still be about the
opposite).
Peace.
"I don't know that athiests should be considered citizens, nor
should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
Pres. George Bush
Free Enquiry magazine, Fall 1988.
-\--/-
Don't just adopt opinions | \/ | Some of you are homeboys
develop them. | /\ | but only I am The Homeboy From hell
-/--\-
Anne Marsden
>never been a single movie from Holywood
>- not ONE - which portrays Moslems and
>wonder why that is....
Valerie Golino as a Moslem in Escape from LA.
Anne M
Vozhd
subjective interpretations. Charles L. Isbell presumes THE SIEGE guilty of
generalizing and tending towards racism. I challenged that by demanding that
the film must make an explicit statement of the generalizing premise (in this
case "All Arabs are terrorists") in order for critics to justly criticize it.
Isbell wondered whether even the notoriously racist BIRTH OF A NATION could be
found guilty by such a strict standard. The test seems to be whether someone
"says" the generalization. For the record, my recollection is that THE BIRTH
is guilty. In a title card, Griffith quotes Lincoln to the effect that freed
Blacks should be sent back to Africa or settled out of the US. That's explicit
advocacy. Besides that, THE BIRTH is an editorializing propaganda film in a
way that the SIEGE is not. If THE SIEGE editorializes at all, the reviews tell
me that it does so in order to question the excesses against civil liberties
that might be taken if America comes under terrorist siege. THE SIEGE is
clearly not about Arab terrorism in the same way that THE BIRTH is about Black
inferiority and the need to enforce it. In any event, the real question about
THE SIEGE is still whether any particular movie is obliged to offer a balanced
portrait of any group of people. It's an important question of social
responsibility and the answer is still no. People must think for themselves.
They have a responsibility to seek another side to any story rather than absorb
one medium's message. If we absolve the individual of this responsibility and
consider him powerless against the media, than we might as well give up on
democracy and civil liberties, since neither would be reliable. I've gone out
of my way to defend THE SIEGE without seeing it (I mean to see it sometimes
this week), and it is perfectly appropriate, for once, to comment sight unseen.
iran_c...@my-dejanews.com
to the TONS of arab-bashing coming from Hollywood, and it is really pathetic.
In article <3644c...@diana.idirect.com>,
"Norman Wilner" <xnwi...@xidirect.xcom> wrote:
> Felixth...@hotmail.com wrote in message
> <7227t7$lnm$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> >
> >In article <3643B0A6...@home.com>,
> > Howard Brazee <
> >NOSPAM...@home.com> wrote:
> >> There are some movies where the terrorists are Irish. And even a few
> >> where the Irish are the good guys and the Brits are bad.
> >>
> >> It is interesting to watch the post-USSR spy genre change.
> >>
> >But even then the Irish bad guys are shown
> >in a somewhat likeable light - and their
> >crimes are not attributed to all Irish people.
> >However, the same is not true of Arabs or
> >Moslems portrayed in Hollywood. At best
> >you'll get a thin veneer of p.c. like in THe
> >Siege - but it is quite obvious. There has
> >never been a single movie from Holywood
> >- not ONE - which portrays Moslems and
> >Arabs in a positive light. Never. Now, I
> >wonder why that is.....
>
> You want one? "Species". Forest Whitaker's character appears to be an
observant
> Muslim, though no attention is called to it. And he's one of the good guys.
>
> There's also David Suchet's character in "A Perfect Murder", a homicide
> detective who may or may not be a Muslim but is certainly depicted as an Arab.
> He's also depicted as the only truly decent and morally upstanding character
in
> the film.
>
> Norm Wilner
> Starweek Magazine
>
>
--
************************************************
Provided Courtesy of
The Iran Courier News
matth...@my-dejanews.com
vo...@aol.com (Vozhd) wrote:
> Re: comparing THE SIEGE and THE BIRTH OF A NATION and explicit messages vs.
> subjective interpretations. Charles L. Isbell presumes THE SIEGE guilty of
> generalizing and tending towards racism. I challenged that by demanding that
> the film must make an explicit statement of the generalizing premise (in this
> case "All Arabs are terrorists") in order for critics to justly criticize it.
> Isbell wondered whether even the notoriously racist BIRTH OF A NATION could be
> found guilty by such a strict standard. The test seems to be whether someone
> "says" the generalization. For the record, my recollection is that THE BIRTH
> is guilty. In a title card, Griffith quotes Lincoln to the effect that freed
> Blacks should be sent back to Africa or settled out of the US. That's
explicit
> advocacy.
Sorry to intrude on this discusion but the truth can be the opposite. We
accept stereotypes because they occur in non-explicit contexts. The opening
of BIRTH gives it away and we are free to be septical. But when Arab
terrorists appear in BACK TO THE FUTURE then it is fed less consciously. I
haven't seen the Siege but ti appears to fal into the middle -- lke hte
Merchant of Venice -- openly discussing and challenging the issue of
sterotyping while indulging in it (if true).
Besides that, THE BIRTH is an editorializing propaganda film in a
> way that the SIEGE is not. If THE SIEGE editorializes at all, the reviews
tell
> me that it does so in order to question the excesses against civil liberties
> that might be taken if America comes under terrorist siege.
That's fine but imagery that is not being editorialized is more powerful than
ones that are. The shuffling black person of non-editorializing old movies
did damage in the way that BIRTH could not. Why? Because nice people accept
that stereotype.
>THE SIEGE is
> clearly not about Arab terrorism in the same way that THE BIRTH is about Black
> inferiority and the need to enforce it. In any event, the real question about
> THE SIEGE is still whether any particular movie is obliged to offer a balanced
> portrait of any group of people. It's an important question of social
> responsibility and the answer is still no. People must think for themselves.
And they think for themselves by organizing to protest, comment upon, lobby,
the makers of film. If anyone has a social responsibility not to promote
stereotype, it stll applies when they are making a move, going to the
bathroom, or tipping the doorman. Social responsibility doesn't stop at the
edge of "art".
> They have a responsibility to seek another side to any story rather than
absorb
> one medium's message. If we absolve the individual of this responsibility and
> consider him powerless against the media, than we might as well give up on
> democracy and civil liberties, since neither would be reliable.
Nonesense -- the free market of ideas includes boycotts, free expression of
criticism and denunciation. Your argument means it's OK to produce art but
not OK to criticize it. That's a limitation on the free market of ideas. THe
only repsonsibility a free society has is not to LEGALLY restrict ideas,
arts, or movies etc. Not to use force or tolerate the use of force and threat
of force against the producer of an art is all freedom requires. Denouncing
it, boycotting it, excoriating its moral flaws, analyzing and criticizing its
subtle imagery and the negative effects are all fair game and VITAL to a free
society.
> I've gone out
> of my way to defend THE SIEGE without seeing it (I mean to see it sometimes
> this week), and it is perfectly appropriate, for once, to comment sight
unseen.
I agree but the better commentary form each of us would be after seeing it.
>
> VO...@AOL.COM
> Publishes UNCLE SAM's E-Zine
> for the THINK 3 INSTITUTE
> at http://members.tripod.com/~Think3/index.html
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Karran
had
"sold" out when he agreed to the creation of Pakistan. No people or religion is
exempt from violence. There are violent Hindus as well as non Hindus in India. It
all depends on the cause these groups are fighting for and the politician who is
backing the violence. Every country in the world has violent people in their midst.
Unfortunately, due to the actions of a few Muslim states which openly sponsor or
support terrorist actions, there is a lot of easy stereotyping which goes on. On an
individual level, people from almost any
nationality are nice, easygoing and well mannered. However, when they are in groups
and there is a grievance of sorts involved, different groups react with a different
degree of violence.
Forget the Muslim stereotype. Look at the Japanese in WWII. Why were they so feared?
It was their will, their determination to triumph in the face of death, their
kamikaze type of mentality which wore down their foes and made them a real terror. I
think the Muslim fanatic, albeit a minority, exhibits the same qualities and that's
what makes the whole people feared. A man who will stop at nothing, who cannot be
talked to, who cannot be reasoned with, is something to fear all right.
A man who will lay his life down for a cause, a belief ( which may or may not be
what you believe in ) is something which most Western minds find unable to
understand, except maybe in the Special Forces or in elite units where people are
trained to lay down their lives for a mission. Most people seek peace and comfort
and peaceful ways to resolve things. Violence is atavistic, an appeal to the
reptilian brain and shows an immaturity that is childish and would be laughable if
it were not for the dead seriousness of the perpetrators of such violence.
Charles L Isbell
> Re: comparing THE SIEGE and THE BIRTH OF A NATION and explicit messages vs.
> subjective interpretations. Charles L. Isbell presumes THE SIEGE guilty of
> generalizing and tending towards racism. I challenged that by demanding that
> the film must make an explicit statement of the generalizing premise (in this
> case "All Arabs are terrorists") in order for critics to justly
> criticize it.
I feel obliged to point out that I didn't really make such a claim or
presumption about _The Siege_. I haven't even seen the movie! My
segue into _Birth of a Nation_ was a result of this exchange:
vo...@aol.com (Vozhd) writes:
| Let's be more specific about this: unless, at some point in THE SIEGE, a
| character with authorial authority states that "all Arabs are terrorists" or
| "all Muslims are terrorists," the film itself is not generalizing.
isb...@ai.mit.edu writes
|Leaving _The Seige_ aside, don't you think this is an amazingly high
|standard? It seems to me that you're essentially saying that one can
|actually change one's message simply by being subtle. In fact, I'm
|not sure if _Birth of a Nation_ even passes the test as you've
|described it above.
> Isbell wondered whether even the notoriously racist BIRTH OF A
> NATION could be found guilty by such a strict standard. The test
> seems to be whether someone "says" the generalization.
Well, yes, but that was *your* standard. My standard is lower.
> For the
> record, my recollection is that THE BIRTH is guilty. In a title
> card, Griffith quotes Lincoln to the effect that freed
> Blacks should be sent back to Africa or settled out of the US.
> That's explicit advocacy.
Not necessarily. I quote Lincoln all the time in my .sig:
"I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the
social and political equality of the white and black races--I am not,
nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor
of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people."
-Abraham Lincoln
Lincoln-Douglas Debates
August 21, 1858
...but that's hardly advocacy, as would be clear from context. But,
let's take your point at face value (there's no need to nitpick).
Let's remove the title card. Same movie? Same message? I suspect
so.
>Besides that, THE BIRTH is an editorializing propaganda film in a
> way that the SIEGE is not. If THE SIEGE editorializes at all, the
> reviews tell
> me that it does so in order to question the excesses against civil liberties
> that might be taken if America comes under terrorist siege. THE SIEGE is
> clearly not about Arab terrorism in the same way that THE BIRTH is
> about Black inferiority and the need to enforce it.
As I read this, the test you're applying to _Birth_ really is less
strict than the one you proposed above for _The Siege_.
>In any event, the real question about
>THE SIEGE is still whether any particular movie is obliged to offer a balanced
> portrait of any group of people.
I claim this is not "the real question."
>It's an important question of social
> responsibility and the answer is still no. People must think for
>themselves.
In fact, I think it's a non-sequitur. The *issue* is: does this movie,
and in the abstract does Hollywood in general, put forth an unfair
stereotype of Arabs, and by extension Arab-Americans? In other words,
do these works lead audiences to a particular conclusion, regardless
of their explicit stance?
What Hollywood's "responsibility" may be is irrelevant. We may agree
they have none, but we must also certainly agree that those who feel
slighted are under no obligation to shut up about their concerns, so
why bring up Hollywood's obligation at all? It's irrelevant, unless
we are about to propose legislation... something no one here is doing.
Granted, it's a possibly interesting question at some level, but so is
a discussion of US policy towards Nigeria. That appears to have
little to do with portrayls of those of Arab descent in Hollywood
films, though.
> They have a responsibility to seek another side to any story rather
> than absorb one medium's message. If we absolve the individual of
> this responsibility and
> consider him powerless against the media, than we might as well give up on
> democracy and civil liberties, since neither would be reliable.
> I've gone out
> of my way to defend THE SIEGE without seeing it (I mean to see it sometimes
> this week), and it is perfectly appropriate, for once, to comment
> sight unseen.
Then I suppose you believe that FCC standards requiring "equal time"
for politcal ads/etc are in error? You believe that it is wrong for
the government to require such a thing? I think you state your
positions with too little room for the gray.
--
Peace.
"We don't necessarily discriminate.
We simply exclude certain types of people."
-Lt Col. Gerald Wellman, ROTC Instructor
at M.I.T., on D.O.D. 1332.14
Benjamin John Olson
>
> >-WHO topples democratic governments to replace then with tin-pot dictators
> >-Who napalms semi-literate peasants -Who trains assasins and torturers at the
> >"School of the Americas" in Ft. Benning, GA. -Who massacres civilian
> >Palestinian women and children in Deir Yassin -Who massacres refugees in
> >Sabra & Shatilla - Who has legalized torture and hostage taking - Who has
> >blatanly violated the 4th Geneva Convention - Who has invaded their neighbors
> >with the stated purpose of causing terror in "Operation Grapes of Wrath" -
> >Who strafed fleeing ambulances - Who bombed the USS Liberty - Who has spied
> >on the US and turned the information over to the Soviets - Who claims to be
> >"Chosed by God" - Who claims to have a god-given right to eradicate and
> >entire people from their own homes - Who has bulldozed hundreds of
> >Palestinian villages to build Jewish-only housing on top of it - Who lays
> >claim on entire sovereign nations based on the Bible - Who mines the harbors
> >of other nations in contravention of international law - Who employed the
> >tactic of "bone breaking" to supress the intifada by sending soldiers
> >door-to-door and randomly beating people of a particular ethnicity - Who has
> >been repeatedly condemned by international human rights monitors while
> >claiming to be a democracy..
Thank You, that would be me, the Hot Handed God Of Email.
I am all of this and more!
Cheers, Ben
Benjamin John Olson
The Beast. Jason patric, Stephen Baldwin, and George Dzundza.
Mississippi Masala (sic). Denzel Washington
Cannonball Run 1 and 2. Jaimi Farr
Hot Handed God Of Email
On Fri, 6 Nov 1998 iran_c...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> Name me one movie in which Arabs and or moslems are portrayed postively and
> one movie in which Israelis are portrayed negatively.
>
>
> In article <19981105103353...@ng-fa2.aol.com>,
> vo...@aol.com (Vozhd) wrote:
> > >From: iran_c...@my-dejanews.com