Skip to comments.
Look Who Isn't Talking: A filmmaker is murdered, and Hollywood loudmouths say nothing.
The Wall Street Journal Opinion Journal ^
| November 24, 2004
| Bridget Johnson
Posted on 11/23/2004 9:37:35 PM PST by quidnunc
Since Nov. 2, I've had an icky feeling in the pit of my stomach. As an ardent Bush backer, my queasiness has nothing to do with the glorious election results, but is prompted by a murder that occurred the same day in Amsterdam.
Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh's short film "Submission," about the treatment of women in Islam, written by female Dutch parliamentarian and former Muslim Aayan Hirsi Ali, had aired in August on Dutch TV. Van Gogh was riding his bike near his home when a Muslim terrorist shot him, slashed his throat, and pinned to his body a note threatening Ms. Ali. This appears to be an organized effort, not the act of a lone nut; Dutch authorities are holding 13 suspects in the case.
After the slaying, I watched "Submission" (available online at ifilm.com) and my mind is still boggled that 11 minutes decrying violence against women incites such violence. There've been many films over the years that have taken potshots at Catholics, but I don't remember any of us slaughtering filmmakers over the offense. You didn't see the National Rifle Association order a hit on Michael Moore over "Bowling for Columbine."
One would think that in the name of artistic freedom, the creative community would take a stand against filmmakers being sent into hiding à la Salman Rushdie, or left bleeding in the street. Yet we've heard nary a peep from Hollywood about the van Gogh slaying. Indeed Hollywood has long walked on eggshells regarding the topic of Islamic fundamentalism. The film version of Tom Clancy's "The Sum of All Fears" changed Palestinian terrorists to neo-Nazis out a desire to avoid offending Arabs or Muslims.
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Extended News; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: goebbels; lyingcowards; mediawingofthednc; napalminthemorning; neoeunazis; partyofthehindparts; rathergate; religionofpeace; wot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-46 last
To: Snapple
The trouble is that this Dutch filmmaker was not a very nice person. He baited Muslims and Jews. The film was not just examining the role of women in Islvery provocative. The filmmaker also would make claims that Muslims have sex with animals. The guy was extremely racist. This does not at all justify murdering him, but he was not trying to win over people's minds to treating Muslim women better. He was just trashing Muslims.>>>>
and your point is? I have seen muzzies called goatrapers times without number. I have also seen southern evangelicals called sister breeding trailer trash. Are you arguing that killing the two loons who made "Fargo" is justified because he portrayed those people as ignorant buffoons? Your argument is similiar to those who argue that some girl who was raped was "asking for it" by wearing provocative clothes. In short, it is stupid.
IF you are arguing that van Gogh was a part of the sneering, trendy crowd who simply mocks all absolutes, and is an example of how the moral vacuum he lives in will not save him from the fanaticism he despises, then you have a point.
I searched through the threads to see if there was one linking Van Gogh with the Barbara Streisand/Michael Moore cabal in Hollyweird, but didn't find one. Maybe we just don't want to dishonor the dead.
41
posted on
11/24/2004 4:27:25 AM PST
by
chronic_loser
(Yeah? so what do I know?)
To: Snapple
The filmmaker also would make claims that Muslims have sex with animals. You scoff but "Muhammad's goat" seems to be a common byword on FR. Is there or is there not truth to this? If it's true then more power to Van Gogh for outing it.
To: Snapple
"The filmmaker also would make claims that Muslims have sex with animals. The guy was extremely racist."
OF course, if there is truth to this at all; by practice; then it is not racist.
43
posted on
11/24/2004 5:27:06 AM PST
by
cricket
(I)
To: stockpirate
Have found it interesting that the celebs have not been challenged on this. . .we have heard little or nothing on what these celebs think about thi; but we have otherwise suffered them weighing in on everything political.
44
posted on
11/24/2004 5:33:22 AM PST
by
cricket
(I)
To: quidnunc
One must remember that "Hollywood" is not an American institution, but rather, an international one. A significant amount of movie revenue comes from outside the United States. For example, Titantic took in $600m domestically and $1.8 billion worldwide. The movers and shakers in Hollywood understand this quite well as do our "American" movie stars. When they deliver their anti-American screed, it is a business decision, nothing more, nothing less.
45
posted on
11/24/2004 5:44:45 AM PST
by
kabar
To: quidnunc
the biggest stunner for me is that i grew up with Bridget and never figured her to be a conservative. i knew she moved to hollywood and figured her for a lefty.....fellow cheesehead does right in the land of nutjobs
irish guard
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-46 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson