Monday, November 8, 2004

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry

I don't know if I can watch the film yet as I am still reeling with anger at my own American feminist movement for choosing to indulge in its' own vigina over the past three years instead of celebrating the liberation of Afghani females.

I need a break from my anger.

syn (ip:68.174.96.173) 8 November 2004 - 19:21 uur

Well, the one good think that has arisen from Van Gogh's murder is that it has dramatically increased the visibility of his work. I had heard about "Submission" before, but it was just one of those newstories that you came across, then it slipped into the background as life went on.

I'll have to make an effort to see the film now, if for no other reason than to try to extract some good from this, and protect freedom of expression here in the USA.

Steven Kraft (ip:198.4.83.52) 8 November 2004 - 21:54 uur

For all you foreigners reading this, please let it sink in that people are too afraid to show Van Gogh's movie in the Netherlands. If you understand the magnitude of this you are beginning to understand that Holland is not a normal Western country.

sad (ip:128.135.36.157) 8 November 2004 - 22:27 uur

Here in the US we have dealt with plenty of fear after September 11!!! However, you can't let terrorists cower you into submission (no pun intended).
I was born and raised in the Netherlands by the way.
Josie

josie (ip:69.163.3.146) 8 November 2004 - 0:13 uur

Here in the US we have dealt with plenty of fear after September 11!!! However, you can't let terrorists cower you into submission (no pun intended).
I was born and raised in the Netherlands by the way.
Josie

josie (ip:69.163.3.146) 8 November 2004 - 0:14 uur

Which is why I encourage everyone to download the film (see link above) and spread it as much as possible. I won't be happy until scientists on the research stations in Antarctica have a copy. Anyone got any friends on ISS? And I'm only half joking.

Arjan (ip:82.161.93.35) 8 November 2004 - 0:18 uur

there is an interesting transatlantic discussion going on here on the cost of freedom, and the need to defend liberty in the west.

american visitors to this site have made commendable remarks on the need to defend western civilization against muslim fundamentalism. theo van gogh of course was a hard core libertarian. and america is the only country in the world that really stands up for the cause of freedom.

but when we look at the actual contents of the film "submission", we should also keep in mind that it's doubtful if any american network would ever broadcast it.

if you think of the anger that janet jackson's one breast caused in the US (and the censorship -- a few seconds' delay in live broadcasts -- that was its result), then it is pretty clear that many americans would be angered by "submission" as well.

what i wanted to say is this: america truly is the land of liberty, but only to a certain extent. on the other hand, the netherlands are also a country of liberty, but it lacks a firm backbone.

peachtree (ip:208.54.95.129) 8 November 2004 - 1:31 uur

peachtree-
Agree with your comments, but the Janet Jackson incident in the US had more to do with her opportunism by showing her fake teat in advance of her CD release which was 2 weeks away. The teat itself was not the issue, more it was her publicity stunt to show off her new peircing to a prime time audience to promote an upcoming CD that made people laugh. It was the media who said it was anger. The Superbowl is also on a terrestrial/antennae broadcast tothe public, a cable or satellte broadcast would have had no critique.
No one should beleive the "eu" or US left who are now trying to claim america is now pumping both bibles and fists into the air. Fists maybe. That evangelical spin is complete nonsense. Remember that it is the US that does NOT have a mandatory church tax, as opposed to some eu states.
Bush is in office again due soley to clowns like bin laden, michael moore, kofi annan, and jacques chirac. It's about that simple, no one should attempt to make more of it.
The same change (or same type of "statement" from the people) will occur in certain parts of the "eu" within 10 years. That's what makes the anti-US hysteria in the eu a disgrace.
Let history roll.

Pato (ip:24.130.248.126) 8 November 2004 - 3:15 uur

Peachtree:

I would be willing to bet that "Submission" could be shown on many cable channels here in the U.S. I'll have to make a quick check later on and see if it has been shown already.

The broadcast networks wouldn't show it, because it is pretty "racy" by American standards.

You might see it on a Public Broadcasting System station, especially those that have independent film compilations. There has already been quite a bit of material over the last 4-5 years about the mysogeny of the Iranian and Taliban regimes.

The Janet Jackson thing was bound to upset a lot of people, between the crass commercialism and the broadcast network spotlight. Many parts of this country are very socially conservative.

Steven Kraft (ip:67.169.18.193) 8 November 2004 - 5:54 uur

Peachtree, Pato and Mr. Kraft are correct. There is a big difference between network television and cable/satellite television here. The networks are restricted in what they broadcast but the cable/satellite stations are not. There is a reason the networks are floundering.

Good blog.

Joe Marino, USA (ip:209.247.222.84) 8 November 2004 - 10:08 uur

Although I mourn Theo's death, I don't want to watch Submission. I've read enough about it to understand the content, and I don't like to delve too deeply into the demonic mental illness of Islam.

There's no doubt that if some American broadcaster wanted to show Submission, then it would be shown. But American broadcasting just doesn't have a lot of venues for documentary films, especially European documentaries. It may get a showing simply because it has become newsworthy (sadly) as the result of Theo's murder. In America there would be no interference by the government, although the film may cause controversy (which it should do, that was Theo's purpose, yes?)

You folks in Europe don't understand the Janet Jackson controversy. First, the Super Bowl is a traditional family event. Most of America gears up for it with Super Bowl parties of friends, family, children, relatives, etc. It is expected that the halftime show will be innocuous, inoffensive, and present rather tame entertainment. That's not what America got. Second, Janet Jackson was a proxy for the larger MTV spectacle of P Diddy grabbing his crotch; men and women dancing in their underware; and the general dry humping and simulated sex. This is not what family viewers expected to see in a Super Bowl halftime show. Janet Jackson's breast was the apogee of the spectacle and as I said merely a proxy for the entire show, start to finish.

Any European who thinks America is full of censorship doesn't know America.

Angkor (ip:68.239.125.103) 8 November 2004 - 18:27 uur

Comment