_(cropped).jpg)
American Barrie Osborne, who also produced The Matrix, told Reuters the film would be an "international epic" aimed at "bridging cultures".Isn't that just incredibly ironic? It is considered blasphemy to depict the prophet, so they're are planning to come up with clever way to avoid him actually being onscreen. No, really!
Osborne says the film, which is being financed by a Qatar-based company, would feature English-speaking Muslim actors, although in keeping with Islamic law, it wouldn't actually depict the prophet on screen (which has got to be bad news for Tony Shalhoub, who'd normally be a shoo-in for the part). Osborne hopes the story of Muhammad would "educate people about the true meaning of Islam."If they get away with making a film where the main character is never actually seen, they'll really have made an epic movie.
I can't wait to see it. The true meaning of Islam... When Muhammad was in Mecca, he was very friendly and accommodating, because he was not yet powerful. At Medina he had gained power, and was then unforgiving in his persecution of the infidels. Charming. Consummating a marriage with a nine-year old. Can't wait to see how they'll handle that.
I had the same reaction when I read about this on BBC News -- in fact I actually wondered if it might be a hoax! -- and then a friend of mine pointed out that it's already been done, and with the same silly constraint. They apparently used light organ music to indicate when Muhammed was nearby (wait, isn't organ music technically a "representation" of the prophet? Oh shit...)
ReplyDeleteI simply can't get over just how incredibly lame that 1976 movie sounds:
ReplyDeleteIn accordance with Muslim beliefs regarding depictions of Muhammad, he could not be depicted on-screen nor his voice be heard. This rule extends to his wives, his daughters and his sons-in-law. This leaves Muhammad's uncle Hamza (Anthony Quinn) and his adopted son Zayd (Damien Thomas) as the central characters. During the battles of Badr and Uhud depicted in the movie, Hamza is in nominal command even though the actual fighting was led by Muhammad.
Whenever Muhammad is present or very close by, his presence is indicated by light organ music. His words, as he speaks them, are repeated by someone else such as Hamza, Zayd and Bilal. When a scene calls for him to be present, the action is filmed from his point of view. Others in the scene nod to the unheard dialogue.
The closest the film comes to a depiction of Muhammad or his immediate family is the view of Ali's sword Zulfiqar during the battle scenes, as well as Muhammad's she-camel and staff in the scenes at the Kaaba or in Medina.
Perhaps before opening you're yap, you should actually see the 1976 film and then judge. It's not just any "representation", it's specifically a visual depiction that is forbidden. I'll bet there are people in other parts of this world who would believe various aspects of your cultural beliefs and values as "silly" and raise their nose on them.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes down to it really there's no difference between you or them. You're both bigots, whether you're a Jew, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Atheist, Agnostic...whatever.
Anon, I am not going to watch the movie before I open my're yap, thank you very much. My blog, know what I mean?
ReplyDeleteIf only a visial depiction is forbidden, why did the 1976 film not include the profit's words? Do you know? I'm not claiming anything either about that, just saying that I find such restrictions "silly" in the extreme.
I don't know which aspects of my beliefs other who find silly (I have no belief in the supernatural, but how about my belief in treating women and other animals humanely?), but I also do not get personally offended when people say that they do. They're welcome to disagree, and I look forward to telling them how stupid they then are.
When it comes down to it really there's no difference between you or them.
There's just no difference at all?! Really? How about my disbelief in unseen gods, and all that crap? How about accepting evidence for evolution? How about tolerance for those with different beliefs (yes, I have that, even though I say out loud when I find other people's beliefs preposterous - something that some religious people in the world haven't)?
big⋅ot
/ˈbɪgət/ Pronunciation [big-uht]
–noun
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
I am not intolerant of other beliefs. I tolerate different beliefs and opinions on a daily basis. I even tolerate bigotry, though I will call people out on it when I see it.