History or Propaganda?
According to the executive producer's reasoning for making the movie -- "to bridge the gap of understanding between Muslims and non-Muslims" -- one can't help but conclude the latter.
"Prophet Mohammed film The Message set for remake," by Chris Irvine, for the Telegraph, October 28:
A remake of The Message, a movie about the life of the Prophet Mohammed, is to be filmed, its producers have said.Clearly, then, this will be a movie totally based on the primary sources of Muhammad's life, such as the hadiths and the sira of Ibn Ishaq. Wonder if the anecdote of Muhammad sending assassins to kill the aged Umm Kirfa (by tying her legs to two camels and driving them in separate directions) will be depicted?
"The Messenger of Peace", to be shot around the holy cities of Mecca and Medina, was originally a 1977 Hollywood film made by Moustapha Akkad and starring Anthony Quinn.It is often applauded by Muslims as an example of how commercial Western cinema can respect Islam.
Producer Oscar Zoghbi, who worked on the original, said: "We have only the utmost respect for Akkad's work but technology in cinema has advanced since the 1970s and this latest project will employ modern film techniques in its renewal of the first film's core messages."
Executive producer of the new movie, Hajja Subhia Abu Elheja, said: "Since 9/11, Islam's image has suffered tremendously.
"Now more than ever it has become important to bridge the gap of understanding between Muslims and non-Muslims."
"It is telling that only one great historical film has ever been made about Islam, a religion with 1.5 billion followers, whereas Christianity has been the subject of over 30."Yes, very telling: producers are terrified of having a fatwa issued against them.
The film's scriptwriter Ramsey Thomas, said: "In the 21st century there is a real need for a film that emotionally engages audiences on the journey that led to the birth of Islam."In the original Message, Mohammed was not seen or heard. Instead Syrian-born director Akkad signified the Prophet's presence with light organ music and occasionally framed the film from the prophet's point of view.
Two versions of the film were shot - one in Arabic and one in English. The remake will be only the second English-language film of its kind ever made.
Akkad, who was the executive producer behind Hollywood's Halloween horror films, was killed in a suicide bomb attack on a luxury hotel in Jordan in 2005.
Portrayals of Mohammed have sparked anger in recent years - Danish cartoons of him in 2006 triggered protests by Muslims in many countries.
Random House US recently cancelled the publication of The Jewel of Medina, a book about one of Mohammed's wives, over fears it would offend Muslims.
It was also pulled in the UK when publisher Martin Rynja's house was targeted in a firebomb attack.
Why again are film-makers not too enthusiastic about making a movie about Muhammad?
The Western film crew started to shoot the original film in Morocco. But there were worries. Muhammad himself is not to be depicted, much less shown being portrayed by an actor. Somehow this objection was overcome -- perhaps Quinn is filmed from the side (I haven't seen the movie) or back. One fine day the King of Morocco got a phone call from the King of Saudi Arabia, and the next day the entire film crew had to pull up stakes and leave: Fahd, or Abdullah, or someone in Riyadh or Jiddah had spoken, and that was that. Out of Morocco, and then -- I think -- the film was completed in Libya. There is an excellent book about the making of a film similar to "Muhammad, Messenger of God," one of the funniest and most perceptive books round and about Islam that has ever been written. It is "The Marrakesh Express" by the late Richard Grenier.
One more think. Mustapha Akkad, the Syrian Muslim who produced the original "Muhammad, Messenger of God," was also a successful producer of Hollywood schlock, was attending a wedding at a hotel in Jordan several years ago. It was his daughter who was getting married. A bomb intended by Muslim terrorists to kill Western tourists, and war the Jordanian govnement not to help the American Infidels, went off. It killed not Western tourists but, rather, Mustapha Akkad and his daughter, and the expectant groom, and many other people who had come to attend the wedding.
Robert, why don't you write a script about Mohammad's life, beginning from the Battle of Badr and ending with the Massacre of the Q'rayzia Jews, and depicting all of the interesting events in between?
You never know, there might be enough movie people who would be willing to back the project anonymously.
From article: Why again are film-makers not too enthusiastic about making a movie about Muhammad?
It's because if they eliminate everything negative about Mohammad, they will have a five minute sound bite. The same would happen if the Quran were edited to remove all negativity, a three page book. Small pages with large print.
There is no way to make an honest film about Mohammad without an uproar from the Mohammadan crowd. The last thing a Mohammadan wants is for Mohammad to be exposed, because exposing him, exposes them...and Islam...
From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Message_(film)),
"Some cinemas received threatening telephone calls from those who mistakenly thought that the film showed Muhammad on screen. On March 9, 1977, a group of Black Muslims, led by Hamas Abdul Khaalis, seized several buildings and took 134 hostages in the Washington, D.C.[2] (see 1977 Hanafi Muslim Siege). The takeover led to the fatal shooting of a police officer, and the non-fatal shooting of Marion Barry, who would become mayor of Washington, D.C. two years later. One of their demands was to prevent the release of the film. One of the hostage-takers specifically said, according to an on-site reporter, that "he wanted a guarantee from whole world it will never be shown or they would execute some of the hostages."
Another person died in that siege as well.
Gee ... I wonder how that happened.
============
And there it is again, "Islam's image".
It's all PR all the time.
The movie "Message of God" is available from Amazon. Interestingly enough, the DVD includes an Arabic version using different actors. The Arabic version is 44 minutes longer than the English version. Wonder why?
I don't believe the filmmaker's excuse. Has anyone fluent in Arabic viewed the film and can clue use in on what is going on in the extra 44 minutes?
The original film was a puff piece about Islam. It was beautifully filmed and is definitely worth watching, if for no other reason than that it sketches out the main events in Mohammad's life. But it's really just a children's version of the religion. It will be interesting to see how a remake will differ from the original, assuming the movie is "allowed" to be made at all. Regardless of whether it is, the attendant kerfuffle within the Islamic world will be entertaining to watch in its own right.
Might I suggest Sean Penn as the "Prophet"?
An honest and truthful film about Mohammed (in which of course he would be clearly visible as the leading protagonist as anything else would be absurd) would be a gorefest in the horror genre and wouldn't even get a rating after having thoroughly traumatised the preview audiences.It could also be a masterpiece in the right hands....a sombre brooding study of evil and psychopathology with a Macbethian mood of devilish madness and lust for power. Ali Sina's study of Mohammed would be perfect source material for the script.But who would play Mohammed? Mickey Rourke?
tanstaafl, good question about whether the Arabic version differs from the English language version. Given Muslims' propensity to say one thing to the outside world and another thing to themselves (e.g. Arafat), it would not be surprising if this were the case. There could also be other differences besides just in the 44 extra minutes. For an Arabic-speaking audience, most of who would be Muslim, I would expect there to be special code words from Islam ("Allahu Akhbar") sprinkled throughout the dialog, maybe enough to account for part of the extra 44 minutes. Or maybe some of it is taken up in condemning the Jews and Christians, or discussing the disposition of captured women and slaves, or where the beheadings should take place...
Might I suggest Sean Penn as the "Prophet"?
Posted by: MP
Your humor supersedes your humor...
There's almost no way to top that for laughs...
"The Messenger of Peace"--actually, the original was Mohammad, Messenger of God (retitled The Message for U.S. release). The whole RoP thing is added.
more:
In the original Message, Mohammed was not seen or heard. Instead Syrian-born director Akkad signified the Prophet's presence with light organ music and occasionally framed the film from the prophet's point of view.
........
Despite this making the entire film incredibly clunky--not only do they refrain from showing Mo, but also his wives, daughters, and sons-in-law--this show of respect was not enough.
What was the reaction to news of the film?
This from Wikipedia:
Some cinemas received threatening telephone calls from those who mistakenly thought that the film showed Muhammad on screen. On March 9, 1977, a group of Black Muslims, led by Hamas Abdul Khaalis, seized several buildings and took 134 hostages in the Washington, D.C. The takeover led to the fatal shooting of a police officer, and the non-fatal shooting of Marion Barry, who would become mayor of Washington, D.C. two years later. One of their demands was to prevent the release of the film. One of the hostage-takers specifically said, according to an on-site reporter, that "he wanted a guarantee from whole world it will never be shown or they would execute some of the hostages".
Hugh wrote:
Muhammad himself is not to be depicted, much less shown being portrayed by an actor. Somehow this objection was overcome -- perhaps Quinn is filmed from the side (I haven't seen the movie) or back.
.............................
Hugh, you're not the only one who assumed that Anthony Quinn played Muhammed, since he is the biggest star (he actually played Hamza).
How did others react to this assumption?
"Finally, when the film was scheduled to premier in the U.S., another Muslim extremist group staged a siege against the Washington D.C. chapter of the B'nai B'rith under the mistaken belief that Anthony Quinn played Mohammed in the film, threatening to blow up the building and its inhabitants unless the film's opening was cancelled. The standoff was resolved without explosion or injuries, though the film's American box office prospects never recovered from the unfortunate controversy."
.........................
This is especially odd, since Quinn is of Mexican and Irish heritage, although apparently some considered him "Jewish-looking". Or perhaps, when in doubt, it is always considered best to blame the Jews for any perceived blemish on Islam.
from above:
"Why again are film-makers not too enthusiastic about making a movie about Muhammad?"
Why, indeed?
And then, Akkad was killed, along with his daughter, in a Jihad terror attack in Jordan a couple of years ago. surely, it's completely inexplicable that filmakers are not flocking to film this story. Must be Islamophobia!
RAYMOND: "Wonder if the anecdote of Muhammad sending assassins to kill the aged Umm Kirfa (by tying her legs to two camels and driving them in separate directions) will be depicted?"
I'm unfamiliar with this particular atrocity. Is this in the Sirat Rasul or the Ahadith? What chapter?
Hugh wrote:
"A bomb intended by Muslim terrorists to kill Western tourists, and war the Jordanian govnement not to help the American Infidels, went off. It killed not Western tourists but, rather, Mustapha Akkad and his daughter, and the expectant groom, and many other people who had come to attend the wedding."
Oh, the irony.
Mohammed should be played by Charles Manson. And the only filmmakers who can do the film justice are Bob Guccione and Tinto Brass the makers of Caligola (1979) in which they graphically and shockingly portrayed the infamous Gaius Germanicus Caligula.
I recall that the original bomb threats against movie theatres which made headlines when the film was first released was the first thing which made me wonder whether there might just be something wrong with Muslims. But I recall also being assured that this was just some tiny nutsoid extremist group....
Anthony Quinn made a career of playing exotics -- guys who, whatever the heck they were, weren't Northern European. His role here was probably inspired by his portrayal of an Arab leader in Lawrence of Arabia. One of his last roles was that of the Greek God Zeus on the TV show Hercules: The Legendary Journeys.
Caligula (1979) in which they graphically and shockingly portrayed the infamous Gaius Germanicus Caligula.
Posted by: David England
I saw that movie, and it did display the depravity
of Caligula's Rome, maybe just a little too well in some parts...
Gee, I didn't know anything about that 1977 hostage "event"; guess I was too young to be paying much attention.
I do hope it appears on the Internet lists of Muslim attrocities.
Has anybody ever checked out Khartoum from 1966?
"In 1885, the city of Khartoum, located on the Nile River and capital of the Sudan, is threatened with being attacked and occupied by Muslim fundamentalist, the Mahdi, and his followers. In addition to its large Sudanese population, the city is home to many Europeans and Egyptians. Loathe to commit British troops to defend the city, the British government sends General Charles Gordon to arrange evacuation of the non-Sudanese. "
With Charlton Heston, Sir Laurence Olivier, ...
I haven't read every comment thoroughly, so someone may have made this point already in response to Hugh's remarks above: Anthony Quinn plays Abu Hamza in The Message, not Mohammed. His mutilation after the battle of...uh, which one was it?...is discreetly depicted. The film is a passable exercise from the cinematic point of view, but it would certainly be true to say that its portrayal of Mohammed is closer to Karen Armstrong's than the truth.
It would be interesting (among other things) to see whether a filmmaker today would actually show Mohammed, and of course what effect that would have. Surely this will not be attempted? Film technology may have developed, but that issue hasn't, except perhaps in a backward direction. There was a time, countable in generations, when film would decline to show Christ, but I don't remember the first essays in doing so producing any death threats.
As with Biblical scholarship, so with the movies: one would be gratified to see the same kind of "courageous truth speaking" as is constantly applied to Christ, and almost always celebrated as "controversial", show its face a little bit in the direction of the Seal of the Prophets. But then, that would take genuine courage, not the self-celebratory pretend kind
Modidnot murder any poets at all. Huge youn prejury stop speading prejury lies about Mo than court of law will decide your fate one day.
...DefenderofIslam
'Mo'??? You called the Prophet 'Mo'??
Not 'The Prophet Mohammad (pbuh)?
How disrespectful of 'Mo'. I'm shocked...
Allah reads Jihadwatch...Careful now, He's watching and taking names and addresses...
The obvious way to make a movie of Mohammad's life would be via animation. If Robert wrote the script, I feel sure that brilliant Western (anonymous of course) animators could do the graphics and then it could be released on the internet. It would go viral in no time and add one more round of nails to the coffin of Islam...
Bosch Faustin comes to mind. How about it guys?
Anthony Quinn also was in another Arab booster film called 'The Lion of the Desert' (which is actually a lot of fun) about the Libyan chieftain who fought Mussolini. If one had a computer generated face for ethnic types from Greek to Mexican to Arab it would probably look like him.
He has successfully capitalized on his looks, always gave producers their money's worth but never stooped as low as Olivier did playing General MacArthur for Reverend Moon.
It will never be made. The producers will spend forever auditioning girls for the part of Aisha...they will be salivating over that part of the story...she will have to be a supremely sexy yet saintly six-year-old. Muslim mothers will be falling over each other trying to have their daughter chosen. Yuk!
DefenderofIslam wrote:
Modidnot murder any poets at all. Huge youn prejury stop speading prejury lies about Mo than court of law will decide your fate one day.
.....................
"Defender of Islam", you are quite right. Mohammed didn't murder any poets. Instead, he had his sycophantic minions murder them in their sleep, on his behalf. Much better!
Well, I suppose you think that the U.S. will have Shari'ah courts one day, which will decide "Huge's" fate. Not on our watch, DOI.
By the way, why do you insist on refering to Hugh Fitzgerald as "Huge"? Seems a bit Freudian to me...
FADE IN-
EXT. A DESERT OASIS. DAY.
Mohammad is beheading the 900th member of a tribe that resisted Islamic conquest. Severed heads and glistening fans of fresh blood are on the ground all around the sweaty "prophet" who steps backward to take a final swing at the neck of the last bound captive, but Mohammad slips on a puddle of red, trips backward awkwardly, and mistakenly slices off the ear of a camel by accident.
MOHAMMAD
(sputtering)
It was Allah's will that I cut of that camel's ear! ... and anyone who says otherwise joins this mute crowd! (he points to the gory remains at his feet)
The intimidated army of his Islamic warriors is silent, although, at the rear of the assembly, there are one or two who supress giggles at Mohammad's klutziness.
LAP DISSOLVE TO:
TITLES:
"MOHAMMAD- BELIEVE OR DIE!"
I don't believe 'Defender of Islam' is as dumb as he pretends to be. I think he is having us on.
What say you?
"I don't believe 'Defender of Islam' is as dumb as he pretends to be. I think he is having us on.
What say you?"
sheik yer'mami
Doesn't matter one way or another. His obvious inability to fashion a coherent statement renders irrelevant whatever it was he might have been trying to say in either case.
An aside: Wasn't "Hamza," the role played by Anthony Quinn in the movie, meant to be that of Abu Baker, the first of the four "Rightly Guided Caliphs" who also launched the first of the riddah (apostasy) wars immediately after Mohammad's death? Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
Also, I think it ironic, but perhaps significant, that Moustapha Akkad was also the producer of the Halloween series of horror movies.
Profitsbeard, oh, I laughed. Don't get to do that very often looking at this site, though I do smile at the wit of the fiery Islamophobes rather often. A cartoon could be good: "Mohammed avec la sourire..." No way of avoiding blood and an adults-only rating though.
Shoot the film, check that, make the film as a cartoon, that should help hold the peace.
"The Message" holds as much truth about the prophet as "Reefer Madness" holds for old hippies.
This is another article that makes me wonder if the reporter can actually write it with a straight face, eg:
"Since 9/11, Islam's image has suffered tremendously... Producer Akkad was killed in a suicide bomb attackin 2005."
or:
"this latest project will employ modern film techniques.... In the 21st century there is a real need for a film [about mankind submitting to 7th century repressive and intolerant ideology]"
"Mohammed should be played by Charles Manson."
Not only that, David. What I'm going to say is kind of obvious, but had Manson been born in the VII Century, he could also have become a messenger of an imaginary deity, to fool hundreds of millions of brain-dead morons into worshipping him as they do worship Mohammed-the-Desert-Pirate-and-Pedophile. By the same token, Mohammed (may eternal torment be upon his rear end) would be on death row or serving a life sentence if he had been born in the XX Century. Unless, of course, he had found a way to go to Saudi Arabia to live out his days in exile like Idi Amin did.
.
As for the remaking of "The Message", I'd suggest that its director use NBC's "TO CATCH A PREDATOR" and reports of sexual violence in Eastern Congo as research material for Muhammad's sex life. Nothing else could help him portray that desert pirate more accurately in that respect.
It's gotta be written by Scorsese in collaboration with Robert Spencer, then filmed by Guccione. The only guy who could play Mo is some agromegaly-ridden freak who refused to get pituitary surgery, now that Matthew McGrory is dead, preferably somebody ridiculously inbred but very, very white, just to drive home the fact that Arabs got their dark skin from hundreds of years of raping African women.
Cornelius,
In the absence of Raymond, I can answer your question about the murder of Umm Qirfa.
One of the companions named Zayd B Haritha led a raid against the B. Fazara. He had recently been wounded in a previous raid against them.
"When Zayd came he swore he would use no ablution until he raided B. Fazara; and when he recovered from his wounds, the apostle sent him against them with a force. He fought them in Wad'il-Qura and killed some of them... and Umm Qirfa Fatima was taken prisoner. She was a very old woman, wife of Malik. Zayd ordered Qays b al-Musahhar to kill Umm Qirfa, and he killed her cruelly (T. by putting a rope to her two legs and to two camels and driving them until they rent her in two)"
P665 The Life of Mohammed, Ibn Ishaq's Sirat rasul Allah (Guillaume)
According to the actor Kevin Sorbo, it would seem that Quinn would have made a gread Muhammad. While Sorbo, Quinn, and Quinn's then wife (second or third) were sitting together, Quinn was constantly scoping out the chicks going by, somewhat to Sorbo's embarrassment. On the other hand, I think he mostly preferred them in the double digits agewise.
Eastview: whoever Anthony Quinn is playing in The Message his character dies. So I presume (short of miracles I have not been apprised of) that he isn't able to do anything in succession to Mohammed.
Regardless of all the bitter (and some of it very funny) joking on here, I would rather like to see this movie made. It would certainly throw an issue or two into relief.
I would cast the pop singer Prince to play Mohammed.