| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Which makes it virtually certain that it is an extended exercise in dhimmitude and historical revisionism. Here is CAIR's press release, "Muslims Call New Fox Crusader Film 'Balanced'; CAIR Says 'Kingdom of Heaven' Avoids Negative Stereotypes," from U.S. NewsWire, with thanks to all who sent this in:
WASHINGTON -- A prominent national Islamic civil rights and advocacy group said today that the new 20th Century Fox epic "Kingdom of Heaven" is a "balanced" portrayal of the Crusades, despite earlier concerns that the film might offer stereotypical portrayals of Islam or Muslims.The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) based its judgment on a private screening of the Sir Ridley Scott film at Fox studios in Los Angeles. "Kingdom" is scheduled to open in theaters nationwide May 6.
The very fact that CAIR was given a private screening speaks volumes. The filmmakers are probably cringing dhimmis, desperately afraid of litigation -- which of course is CAIR's weapon of choice.
Representatives of CAIR's Southern California office (CAIR-LA) and the group's national headquarters took part in the screening. They said the film, which focuses on the 12th century period between the Second and Third Crusades, highlights the humanity of characters on both sides of that centuries-long conflict."Our overall impression is that 'Kingdom of Heaven' is a balanced and positive depiction of Islamic culture during the Crusades," said CAIR-LA Communications Director Sabiha Khan. "Muslims are shown as dignified and proud people whose lives are based on ethics and morality." Khan said one of the film's positive messages, that Muslims and Christians can live together in peace, will provide an opportunity for increased interfaith dialogue.
"It is unfortunately a rare occasion when a Muslim filmgoer can leave the theater feeling good about a movie's portrayal of Islam," said CAIR National Communications Coordinator Rabiah Ahmed, who also attended the Los Angeles screening. "This film managed to show the horrors of war without associating those horrors with a particular faith or culture." Ahmed thanked Fox for its screening of the film and for taking care to avoid religious stereotypes...
Posted by Robert at April 27, 2005 6:49 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
IT is only a matter of time before someone produces an accurate portrayal of the birth of Mohamedism Then we will all be treated to the high art of Islamic architectural redesign.
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at April 27, 2005 8:42 AM
Well, here in Belgium this movie gives some newspapers the opportunity to speak rubbish.
Exemples today in "Metro", a free newspaper you can find in railway & subway stations (translation from French "quick & dirty", sorry!):
* first, a reminder that the crusaders "were not going only for their faith, but for the immense wealth they knew existed in the Middle East"
... right, but strangely enough the way it is presented reminds me of "US is in Iraq because of Oil" ...
* "Christianity and Islam actually condemn the use of violence"
... yeah yeah, someone who has not read the Quran obviously
* "Pope's influence was greater than it should have been... and young aristocrats were actually threatened of excommunication if they didn't go to the crusades"
... I do not know how much of this is true, but it is again presented in a way that sort of vilify the church and the crusades...
* no word of course about how the Muslims got their empire, and why they claim Jerusalem as a holy city; it just is so...
* "the movie gives modern ideas to Balian's character... if you really want to know how people were in the Middle-Age, look at Reynald de Châtillon's character"
... while the first part is probably true, saying that they all were some kind of barbarious, treacherous thiefs does seem a bit ... mmh... exagerated, no?
* "Was president Bush right to use the word "Crusade" ? answer: He used an unlucky wording... If Bush uses this type of words, Bin Laden will then do it also..."
... yup. He even used it a long time before Bush, in his 1998 War Declaration to the... Crusaders!
The journalist who wrote that piece of crap attributes its source to 3 people:
"Donald Spoto, Hitchcock biographer & Middle-Age specialist"
"Nancy Caciola, History Professor at Michigan University"
"Dr Hamid Dabashi, Iranian Study Professor at Columbia University"
Well, I don't know (or though I didn't know them), so I checked.
Spoto: "A prolific and respected biographer and theologian, Donald Spoto is the author of nineteen published books, among them best-selling biographies of Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, Alfred Hitchcock, Tennessee Williams and Ingrid Bergman." - No mention about Medieval specialist here...
"NANCY CACIOLA: Research and teaching interests:
Medieval European History, with emphasis on the history of popular culture, religious dissent, women's history, and apocalypticism. My newest project investigates the conjunction of medieval geographical and apocalyptic ideas with notions of the evolution of the body through space and time." - so she's specialised in M-A history, but not really on the Crusades subject...!
Dabashi: oh, what a surprise... I had actually already read about him... !
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/2496
Well, that's it folks. That's the way "the true history behind the movie" is presented... Yuck!
Posted by: Pistache at April 27, 2005 8:49 AM
Which takes me back to my suggestion earlier this week that a good, but popular, film is needed about the Armenian genocide to pique the interest of the general public. Waterdragon pointed me to a Canadian film called Ararat on the subject but I don't think that went on general release in the UK.
I know that Gary and Hugh deplore the fact that many people these days get their history from light entertainment and I tend to be a pointer out of inaccuracies myself. So who could make watchable entertaining films that are accurate and appealing?
at April 27, 2005 9:19 AM
"...It is unfortunately a rare occasion when a Muslim filmgoer can leave the theater feeling good about a movie's portrayal of Islam..."
It's a rare occasion when I can read the news feeling good about islam's portrayal of non-muslims...
Posted by: Belisarius at April 27, 2005 9:24 AM
"Pope's influence was greater than it should have been... and young aristocrats were actually threatened of excommunication if they didn't go to the crusades"Not true. Those who ALREADY had outstanding problems with the church could get what amounted to a blanket pardon by going on a crusade. Nobody was excommunicated for not going. Posted by: Beagle
at April 27, 2005 10:49 AM
Granny Weatherwax:
The film is Ararat (links below) by the Canadian director (with Armenian heritage) Atom Egoyan. He is more of a director of "art films" that seldom receive wide distribution although often critically acclaimed. You may be able to find it on video in the UK - good luck.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000382/
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20021122/REVIEWS/211220301/1023
Posted by: johnb at April 27, 2005 11:26 AM
This movie (the trailers) looks very visually slick with good action. I'll see it and try to take it's PC message with a grain of salt. Let's wait and see how bad it is
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/kingdom_of_heaven/
Posted by: dennisw at April 27, 2005 12:02 PM
A muslim filmgoer.....hmmm I wonder what the ruling would be on a muslim going to the movies at the "ask the imam site"...I thought that type of entertainment was not allowed...there will be men and women mixing in this movie which has also been listed as a "romantic" adventure...*gasp* and when the knight falls in love with the princess he may even KISS her....I would bet the imams wouldnt approve.
Posted by: USAgirl at April 27, 2005 12:34 PM
Johnb
Thanks to Waterdragon I did find a review of Ararat and thought it was an intriging idea, the film within a film. And with a good cast; I wondered what had happened to Christopher Plummer and Charles Aznovoir. But it was an art film, with limited appeal. Funny thing, the two films I had in mind when I made the point first were Galipolli (and by extension Braveheart) and Shindler's List, and they were also mentioned in the review through your link. And art film though it was, it still attracted criticism from Turkey.
I suppose, were there to be a multimillionaire film producer out there reading JW, my wish list for films would be.
1 Something more about the Armenian Genocide with a more mass audience appeal.
2 A tale of the English, or perhaps there would be more international sympathy were they Welsh and Irish villagers abducted from their coastal homes by the Barbary pirates and sold in the slave markets of Morocco. NOT a swashbuckler (much as I loved the Crimson Pirate), or a sexy fantasy crud. I must get a copy of White Gold, about the Cornish boy who was put to work constructing the Sultans Palace.
3 The life of Mohammed. Not a biopic, and not from his viewpoint. It's impossible to do a life without making the central character ever so slightly sympathetic or human. So from the viewpoint of Asma Bint Marwen, or her children, or the Jewish wife who saw her husband and all her male relatives slaughtered before she was selected for his harem.
That should take us up to 2012. Any other ideas?
Dennisw
Thanks for your comment on the Alas for Europe thread this morning. If you can get UKHistory on cable or satelite the TV series is currently being repeated. The book is better and more detailed.
at April 27, 2005 1:15 PM
But it was an art film, with limited appeal.
Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at April 27, 2005 01:15 PM
Granny, yeah, you're right. We saw it, and despite the intersting subject matter, it was actually so boring that we bailed out before it was out.
Conflicts between good and evil should be portrayed with all the intensity they deserve; such portrayals are not only entertainment, they are lessons--in fact, ALL art, even movies, teaches lessons.
It's no accident that "esthetics" is a major branch of philosophy.
Posted by: cubed at April 27, 2005 2:09 PM
Correction: "interesting" and "before it was over."
Posted by: cubed at April 27, 2005 2:10 PM
Ok boys and girls, all of the current Allahisms have been posted at:
http://muslum-menace.blogspot.com/
Posted by: BillR at April 27, 2005 3:12 PM
The truth about CAIR:
http://www.co-jet.org/cjet/contents/022605/cairfactsheet.htm
Posted by: Mike at April 27, 2005 6:24 PM
Downloadable leaflets on CAIR available in the Pamphlets section here:
Posted by: Mike at April 27, 2005 6:26 PM
See if you can find CAIR amongst the list of Muslim organizations endorsing the March Against Terror:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17850
Big suprise, huh?
Posted by: Mike at April 27, 2005 6:32 PM
Orlando Bloom is a very decorative young gentleman, much admired by many young girls of my aquaintance.
I think the ladies Khan and Ahmed have a crush on him. They are in lurve! Pics on the bedroom walls.
OB
4
SK
carved on the office desks. It makes sense. I see it now.
Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at April 27, 2005 6:48 PM
If they're calling this thing "balanced" it has to be pro-Muslim propaganda. Yikes!
Posted by: Timbo at April 29, 2005 2:16 AM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)