Gone are the days where brown skinned actors are typecasted to play the thick accented T-Mobile kid. These days, if you are brown, Hollywood is looking for you to play the role of a terrorist. United 93, the movie about the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania on 9/11, hits the big screens today and The LA Times did a great article on the men that play the terrorists.
As filmmakers tell a number of stories about Sept. 11 and other attacks both real and fictionalized — a rapidly growing list that includes “Munich,” “Syriana,” “Paradise Now” and Friday’s “United 93” — there’s increased demand for young Middle Eastern actors. But directors and their casting agents must convince those actors that their cinematic cause is more noble than that of directors a generation ago, who routinely depicted Arabs as cartoonish, fanatical madmen.
Mazhar Munir from Syriana
When writer-director Stephen Gaghan was casting “Syriana,” his ensemble drama about the political and personal costs of America’s dependence on foreign oil, he struggled to find a young actor of Pakistani descent to play a suicide bomber… “I had found a couple of terrific young actors who simply weren’t allowed by their families to take the part,” Gaghan said. “One young man’s family said he would be cut out of the family” if he accepted the role. He held casting sessions in Los Angeles, New York, Paris, Damascus, Bahrain, Dubai and Karachi without success before he finally found Mazhar Munir in London.[link]
I haven’t watched ‘Syriana’ yet, and personally, have absolutely no desire to watch ‘United 93’- just watching the trailer makes me queasy. I can only imagine the conflict that these actors feel, especially when it comes to starring in a film about the events around 9/11, a day that impacted so many people in so many ways around the world.
[T]he actors say they are thankful to be rid of the clichéd Middle Eastern villains of the late 1980s and early 1990s (in films such as “Delta Force,” “Navy Seals,” “Iron Eagle”), who were far more likely to be bearded, wear kaffiyehs and shout Arabic insults than resemble a real person. It was precisely those clichéd depictions that made Abdalla so nervous about trying out for “United 93.”“The reputation of representing Arabs by Hollywood is a stereotype, and it’s an incredibly hurtful stereotype,” says Abdalla, who was born in Scotland to Egyptian parents… “The idea was to put all of those people on the plane and try as best as we can to tell that story,” Abdalla said of his meeting with the filmmaker. “[United 93] wasn’t to be a film about stereotypes.”
[link]
#1 Mutineer Crush
Though playing a terrorist these days tremors actors with trepidation, the role of playing an Iraqi terrorist ex-Republican Guard soldier Lost on an island was one that Naveen Andrews picked. It has served him well as it has now landed him as one of the World’s Most Beautiful People in 2006.
“I feel a sense of responsibility to the Iraqi community and to the Arab world,” Andrews told us…. “I was concerned that the way Sayid was going to be perceived would not be negative or peripheral in any way. The audience is reaching out to the so-called enemy in a way that the government and the media won’t allow them to do.”[link]
If I thought airport security was too constraining for me, I can’t imagine what it must be like for these actors when they go through security. “I’m sorry, officer. But I’m really not a terrorist, I just play one on T.V.”
I dont know.
Even if I was a white American,I would be pretty ambivalent about a 9/11 movie…..somehow it does appear to be too soon.I personally haven’t been able to see the 9/11 footage even once since 9/11 itself without wincing or looking away……I flew into Houston from Delhi a a month after the attacks and of course,compared to my maiden American journey a year before,things just felt so different…jarringly,they still do.
Some of my (desi) friends were discussing going to this movie……none was sure.Most of us did feel uncomfortable at the misplaced nationalism it might evoke.I think I have had enough of people walking past you and your trying to second-guess whats on their mind.
I wonder if the Saudi Ambassador will be going to the premiere ? Perhaps some complimentary should be mailed to his address…
“complimentary tickets” …
concerned mutineer (#22):
Phew, I’m glad I didn’t have to say it! If he isn’t #1, is PMG at least #2?
Deepa (#54):
Well, I was already leaning, but that put me over the edge. Who else wants in the Deepa fan club?
I’d like to, but I’m not sure what angle to take on it. You’ve more or less backed me into a corner.
“How could God allow this to happen?” To me, the actions of those passengers was proof of God’s existence.
Because God is so merciful, benevolent and compassionate? Funny, the fact that the passengers actually did die did not remind you of God’s cruelty and impotence.
My own worry is if they show the hijackers as human, instead of the sick gutless coward they really are.
Why were they exactly cowards? Traditionally a person is considered a coward for attacking women or children or unarmed men because the attacker does not face the same level of threat from these people that he would face from an armed man. In this case, as they were going to kill themselves anyway, the fact that they chose ‘soft’ targets was not because attacking soft targets was the easier thing to do. They were going to die anyway so saving their own skin was not a motivation in attacking these soft targets. So I am not sure why the 9-11 hijackers were cowards.
😀
Al_Mujahid_f_D,
Ahem Some of us would say that God was acting through those passengers in their efforts to overcome the hijackers — which they managed to do.
So when God acts through people, he kills them?
I’m just being annoying, I don’t want to get into a theological debate!
Why not hire only hindu actors to play terrorists etc? They will have no/lesser qualms in portraying the stereotype.
Hmmm
The other side is also invoking God and God’s existance and God’s command as justification for their action. No one is talking about HUMANS and their humanity. Bringing God into this is the root of most of these issues to begin with.
Bringing God into this is the root of most of these issues to begin with.
Amen, brother 🙂
-se
I find most people down on Atlas Shrugged never even read it.
Care to make your confession?
I find most people down on Atlas Shrugged never even read it.
That’s because it’s unreadable.
Right. If it were, you might actually have read a few pages before finding another excuse.
If it were READABLE, I meant to say.
(Flogs self for not hitting ‘Preview’.)
I’ve read it at least 5 times. (possibly enough to “internalize” it 😉 )
Then why are you afraid more people will read the book?
In short because I’ve seen a lot of people come away from the book with messages which are not only useless but also perhaps harmful:
1) We should have a purely capitalist system (the success of capitalism in Atlas Shrugged depends entirely upon a certain model of human behavior – when in real life the “capitalist giants” are generally Jim Taggarts)
2) Europeans are better (and eastern philosophies are purely corrupt – although it’s clear that she knows nothing about the eastern philosophies she is condemning)
3) [The person who just read the book] is just a misunderstood genius.
4) The reader fails to take into account (because Rand largely does) the cases of people who are disadvantaged due to disabilities or to life circumstances – yes, ultimately [almost] everyone is responsible for themselves but there are substantial and real differences in people’s starting points, which in practice make it vastly more difficult for some people.
5) People are completely able, if they only make the effort, to identify and evaluate their values, premises, and their sources.
I read Atlas Shrugged like a comic book. “Wouldn’t it be great if [people were motivated purely by the desire to realize their best expression];[material and psychological and systemic oppression based upon race, gender, or colonial history were not so difficult to overcome as they are]; [etc.]. Then, …”
It is a statement of an ideal in human behavior producing an idealized world. But it is harmful to look at the idealized results, and decide to apply Rand’s stated causes to real society, because there are forces in real society which are not taken into account in Rand’s version of “real society.”
Moreover, the model of human psychology was too simplistic. Rand, like all of us humans, was unable to identify and evaluate all of her premises and their sources – because we have a lot going on semi- or subconsciously. It is valuable to make the attempt, but no one can expect to be able to succeed completely – in fact, that expectation can create even more sinister delusions.
I remember some years ago on the Prodigy bulletin boards there were two self-identified camps of Objectivists – “Randian Objectivists” and “Liberal Objectivists.” The “liberals” believed in the idea of people identifying and “owning” their value systems, checking their premises, etc. (what I will call the “Objectivist process”), but allowed that there could be a diversity of resulting value systems. The “Randians” believed that you were “depraved” if you did not end up with the exact same results as Rand did after going through the “Objectivist process.”
But when I read the Brandens’ biographies I learned that from Rand’s viewpoint only what we called “Randian Objectivists” were Objectivists. In fact, everything down to your preference in sexual partners was mandated – i.e. if you were female and attracted to a guy who didn’t look like a Randian hero, that was evidence of some hidden “depravity.” In practice, Rand’s word, not necessarily the logical result of applying the Objectivist process, defined Objectivism. That would seem to undermine the central concept of Objectivism.
I was also very struck by a description in one of the biographies (can’t remember whether Nathaniel’s or Barbara’s) of a comic book which Rand had read at the age of 9 – featuring a tall, fair, blond, blue-eyed, long-limbed hero named Cyrus who rescued a similarly-built heroine from the clutches of a “fat, greasy Rajah.” It seemed clear to me that here was the origin of her character types (and the offhand mentions of fat, greasy Rajahs and grotesque, many-armed idols in summing up and dismissing eastern philosophies). As you may know her heroine in “We the Living” is Kira, the feminine form of the name Cyrus.
On the whole, Objectivism must be taken with a few grains of salt, with an emphasis on what responsibility oneself can take, but with an understanding that too strict an application can lead to dangerous forms of denial (“I checked all my premises and I have it all squared away”). And there must be an emphasis on the stated process, not on the specific conclusion as laid out by Rand. And it is ultimately anti-Objectivist, I believe, to approach Objectivism by demanding that the rest of the world operate as in Atlas Shrugged without looking to oneself first.
http://crookedtimber.org/2006/04/28/scorpion-and-felix-2/
So why did you read the book five times? You gave a fairly standard denunciation of Rand, so why devote so much time to the book?
I’m not an Objectivist, by the way, but Atlas Shrugged is a great book, in my opinion, and would make a great miniseries if done right. But done right does not mean to me trying to sell Objectivism, but merely presenting the larger than life characters acting out the great story. The philosophy in the background need only be outlined to add to the drama.
Pure comic-book entertainment.
Yes. A fun story but not something to live by.
Bong Breaker,
Without getting into another long drawn-out debate a la PP, personally I believe that the answer is Yes, although it’s more to do with a last-resort option in order to defend the innocent rather than anything driven by anger or maliciousness. You know the Sikh angle on it all so I don’t need to get into all that here.
I hope you’ve been keeping tabs on “that” thread on PP. Our belligerent friend from the MAC is not only an arrogant thug and a pathological liar, he’s also a blatant hypocrite. Considering the amount of “projecting” (in the psychiatric sense) he’s doing, his apparently delusional detachment from reality, and his paranoia combined with a staggering lack of self-awareness, it’s like a case study in clinical psychosis.
The words “Asperger’s Syndrome” came to mind, although that may be an exaggeration. He’s not quite at Anjem Choudhary extremes but he’s certainly significantly on the same path and is using many of the same psychologically manipulative tactics. I was wondering what you thought of it all, especially as a medical professional.
As you know, I don’t normally believe in making such comments about people when they’re not around to defend themselves, but in the interests of “keeping the peace” I thought I should mention it to you here rather than on PP, especially as the guy concerned has been unable to restrain himself from trying to “have the last word” on that thread. Further responses from me there would just unnecessarily inflame and prolong a situation which is already irritating enough.
It can’t be Asperger’s Jai – that’s normally associated with a high IQ! I’ve been keeping tabs and actually typed out a response, but I decided better of it and am staying out. I may close the thread, but I think it’s petering out. I’ve got to knuckle down to work so I’ve had my week Sepia/PP-fest week and now back to (re)vision. I’ll become one of those lurkers for the next few weeks.
Bong Breaker,
Well he certainly seems intelligent although his thought patterns are confused and quite convoluted. Again, he’s doing a huge amount of “projecting” and is definitely highly paranoid. I’m assuming you’ve read his most recent post on “that” thread, this time directed mostly at me although he’s fired off some shots at the rest of the PP crowd too.
It’s disconcerting that such an individual is involved in such a supposedly high-profile organisation — dangerous to say the least, although — again — I’m not sure if his mental state is at HuT/Anjem Choudhary levels just yet. His behaviour and perception is still quite unstable, though.
Jay Singh was correct in using the word “neurotic” — and in this case, I don’t think it’s just a figure of speech. Psychologically, that guy doesn’t seem to be very well in some aspects. It’s also obvious that he’s been on the receiving end of a huge amount of misinformation and propaganda — assuming that he’s not actually aware of the “true facts” and is not deliberately lying in order to a) defend himself from what he perceives to be an “attack” and b) to further his own agenda.
I responded with a “final” post in response to his own, although I’m not sure if this’ll do any good. “Watching” someone repeatedly and ignorantly rant like that and (unknowingly) embarrass himself on a globally-accessible public internet forum is not a pleasant experience. I wish he’d just drop the matter so he doesn’t make things even worse for himself, especially as he’s showing himself to be a liability to his organisation and, by virtue of his behaviour, is not exactly a positive ambassador for the religion he wishes to promote either.
Good luck with your revision.
I’ll just leave by re-stating that I’m not an Objectivist and I don’t center my life around Ayn Rand. I just think Atlas Shrugged is a great book. A movie of it is not likely to work. A TV miniseries is the way to go, in my opinion, But it would be better not to film it.
I would be remiss if I didn’t make this point. I have a special liking for two great Russian novels, War and Peace and Atlas Shrugged. They are philosophical opposites. Tolstoy crammed his book with collectivist philosophy, and Rand crammed her book with individualist philosophy. No doubt they would hate each other. But I love both books. I have no problem suspending disbelief in the extremes of either the left or the right in order to enjoy and appreciate a great book.