|
Post by Supertramp78 on Nov 2, 2009 10:37:24 GMT -5
Producer Barrie Osborne cast Keanu Reeves as the messiah in The Matrix and helped defeat the dark lord Sauron in his record-breaking Lord of the Rings trilogy. Now the Oscar-winning American film-maker is set to embark on his most perilous quest to date: making a big-screen biopic of the prophet Muhammad.
Budgeted at around $150m (£91.5m), the film will chart Muhammad's life and examine his teachings. Osborne told Reuters that he envisages it as "an international epic production aimed at bridging cultures. The film will educate people about the true meaning of Islam".
Osborne's production will reportedly feature English-speaking Muslim actors. It is backed by the Qatar-based production company Alnoor Holdings, who have installed the Muslim scholar Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi to oversee all aspects of the shoot. In accordance with Islamic law, the prophet will not actually be depicted on screen.
"The film will shed light on the Prophet's life since before his birth to his death," Ahmed Abdullah Al-Mustafa, Alnoor's chairman, told al-Jazeera. "It will highlight the humanity of Prophet Muhammad."
-------------
So you are going to make a movie about someone who is never going to be shown on screen. You plan on highlighting the humanity of someone whitout ever showing him. This is going to be one very odd movie.
Reminds me of the stink that started when Richard Attenborough announced that he wanted to shoot a biography of Ghandi. Many in India were outraged and requested that Ghandi not actually be shown on screen. One suggested that he only be shown as a ball of light. Luckily, Attenborough cast Ben Kingsley instead and the movie turned out to be rather good.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Nov 2, 2009 10:39:58 GMT -5
I guess you could do it like the Bogart movie where everything is seen from his eyes.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Nov 2, 2009 10:48:17 GMT -5
I thought it sounded pretty good until you got to the no Muhammad part.
I'll pass on this one.
|
|
|
Post by RickW on Nov 2, 2009 10:54:42 GMT -5
Or, it could be brilliant.
The likelihood is, that no matter what is done, it'll piss of the islamic world. But, be interesting to try.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Nov 2, 2009 12:31:32 GMT -5
If you wear one of these backward during the movie, I don't think you'll miss anything.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2009 13:08:50 GMT -5
BTW, what did Muhammed actually look like? Any historical accountsof his appearance?
|
|
|
Post by knobtwister on Nov 2, 2009 13:10:52 GMT -5
BTW, what did Muhammed actually look like? Any historical accountsof his appearance? No but luckily the voice recordings survived. ;D Don
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2009 13:24:57 GMT -5
BTW, what did Muhammed actually look like? Any historical accountsof his appearance? No but luckily the voice recordings survived. ;D Don Well, that's a relief. I hear he had a decent baritone singing voice.;D
|
|
|
Post by theevan on Nov 2, 2009 14:21:19 GMT -5
He was one bada$$ prophet...
|
|
|
Post by omaha on Nov 2, 2009 14:44:23 GMT -5
Its interesting to me that Western intellectuals and artists seem to show a great deal of deference to Islam. For example, the Yale University Press published a book dealing with the Mohammed cartoons published in a Danish newspaper...but decided to not actually include the cartoons for fear of offending Muslims. At the same time, Western intellectuals/artists seem to relish opportunities to defame Christian symbols. "Piss Christ" seems to be the definitive example.
|
|
|
Post by dickt on Nov 2, 2009 14:59:03 GMT -5
So, Jeff, would that be "4 out of 5" Western intellectuals and artists that relish the Piss Christ?
|
|
|
Post by theevan on Nov 2, 2009 15:45:25 GMT -5
1 out of 5 would be too many for me. And apparently still more than those willing to offend Islam.
Maybe it's just FOF
(While we're on the -related- subject, anybody listeng to the R. Crumb interview on TOTN? He's done an illustrated Genesis. There are sample panels at npr.org)
(Fear of fatwah)
|
|
|
Post by Supertramp78 on Nov 2, 2009 16:03:50 GMT -5
Personally I think it speaks a lot for Christianity that people can be rude to it and it doesn't kill people in return. The idea of free speech is guided by that 'while I might not agree with what you say, I will defend to the death your ability to say it" ideal. Christianity is trying to uphold that ideal a lot more than other religions are and I think that is a nod to Christians. Should people be able to create offensive art directed at religions? Yes. Imagine a world where one could not. Well, you don't really have to imagine it, it exists and we don't like it. So I would much rather we lament the fact that we can't say whatever we want to about Islam for fear of violence than I would ever get concerned about our ability to say whatever we want about Christianity without fear of official reprisal at all.
Just my opinion but then I don't have a dog in this race.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Nov 2, 2009 16:07:37 GMT -5
If you separate Islam from the primitive, fearful, racist, misogynistic, tribal culture that produced it, you are left with, um, you are left with ..., oh boy, you are left with... well, not very much. Some rules on polite tent behavior?
Should be a fascinating movie. Wonder how they will treat the book on the Children of Israel?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2009 16:22:28 GMT -5
It might be a pretty cool device to make a bio-pick where the main character is never actually seen. Heck, it's probably been done, but still is a cool idea on it's own merit. Too bad it seems to be compelled by superstition and hostile ignorance, in this case.
|
|
|
Post by theevan on Nov 2, 2009 16:34:25 GMT -5
Personally I think it speaks a lot for Christianity that people can be rude to it and it doesn't kill people in return. The idea of free speech is guided by that 'while I might not agree with what you say, I will defend to the death your ability to say it" ideal. Christianity is trying to uphold that ideal a lot more than other religions are and I think that is a nod to Christians. Should people be able to create offensive art directed at religions? Yes. Imagine a world where one could not. Well, you don't really have to imagine it, it exists and we don't like it. So I would much rather we lament the fact that we can't say whatever we want to about Islam for fear of violence than I would ever get concerned about our ability to say whatever we want about Christianity without fear of official reprisal at all. Just my opinion but then I don't have a dog in this race. At one point that wasn't true. But then the corrupt stepchild that dominated western Christianity 'back then' got what it deserved...a major fracture. Though credit can be spread far and wide, I give credit for the core essentials that led to a gentler, more Christ-like church to the Scottish enlightenment.
|
|
|
Post by RickW on Nov 2, 2009 16:44:00 GMT -5
I think you're fairly ignorant of what Islam is, and has been Paul. There's a good deal of beautiful, relevant, tolerant belief in Islam. And Christianity may, currently, not be so big on killing people for disagreement, does not mean that it was historically not done, or in the future might be.
There are lots of very tolerant muslims, and a number of butt heads. The same thing can be said for Christians today.
|
|
|
Post by omaha on Nov 2, 2009 16:50:49 GMT -5
So, Jeff, would that be "4 out of 5" Western intellectuals and artists that relish the Piss Christ? I would be interested in examples of deference to Christian sensibilities (in recent years) that are equivalent to the Yale University Press example. And to be clear where I am coming from, I think everything should be defamed, all the time. Or at least we should be willing to defame everything, all the time. Actually doing so can get tiring. And boringly non-creative. But its also boringly non-creative when, err, "creative" types pretend they are being subversive by criticizing or defaming Christianity. Yawn. Lets try something fresh, eh?
|
|
|
Post by Supertramp78 on Nov 2, 2009 16:59:51 GMT -5
Kind of comes with the territory when you are the largest religion on the planet. Globally there are more Christians than anything else. No point picking on the minority. That is rude. The majority should have a thicker skin. You outrank Jews 150 to 1. You have Islam beat by almost a billion folks. Man up.
|
|
|
Post by omaha on Nov 2, 2009 17:06:56 GMT -5
Islam would have better numbers if they didn't blow themselves up so much.
|
|