Israelis ask Oscars to drop suicide bomb film

[Moloch]

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - A group of Israelis who lost children to Palestinian suicide bombings appealed on Wednesday to organizers of next week's Academy Awards to disqualify a film exploring the reasoning behind such attacks.

The bereaved parents said they had gathered more than 32,000 signatures on a petition against the nomination in the best foreign film category of "Paradise Now," a drama about two West Bank friends recruited to blow themselves up in Tel Aviv.

The controversial film was made by an Israeli Arab director and actors working with a Palestinian crew and locations. The producer was a Jewish Israeli and the funding was European.

Yossi Zur, whose teenage son Asaf was killed in a bus bombing, accused the film of sympathetically portraying a tactic hailed by many Palestinians waging a 5-year-old uprising.

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=filmNews&storyID=2006-03-01T131605Z_01_L0154619_RTRIDST_0_FILM-ARTS-ISRAELIS-PALESTINIAN-DC.XML

[havocmom]

1. Ignoring something does not make it go away

We are not better off being blind

[Dhalgren]

2. I agree with you. Looking at the truth may be a hard thing to do,

but not looking has ceased to be an option...

[havocmom]

11. That would make a great sig line

or bumper sticker :thumbsup:

[acmavm]

3. I would have signed a petition asking them to withdraw The

Passion on the grounds that a snuff film, religious or whatever, was too gross to be given the award. Plus it glorified the gory events that led up to the REASON for the event, and ignored everything else.

You can't always get what you want folks. It is what it is. And the horrific events in that movie play out day after day in the Middle East.

[Nikki Stone 1]

7. From everything I heard, The Passion of the Christ was a snuff film

Jesus was allegedly "pure hamburger" by the time Gibson was finished with him. I didn't see it myself, but this was from a friend I trusted.

[megatherium]

12. I did watch it. The violence in the film was unnecessary and

gratuitous. One example: The 'bad thief' on the cross has his eye pecked out by a raven.

[MadMaddie]

17. It was one of the most disturbing and violent movies......

I have seen..

The movie depicted jews with rotten teeth as heathens...

There were so many thing wrong with the movie....

[DemExpat]

18. I have never avoided a movie before this one - my aversion

is mighty strong.

:puke:

DemEx

[Nikki Stone 1]

32. I hadn't heard the part about the depiction of the Jews

Makes me glad I didn't go.

BTW, didn't a lot of fundies bring their kids to the damned thing?

[MadMaddie]

94. Yes....many fundie parents took their kids to see this....

[fujiyama]

81. You wouldn't have had to worry

I think it was nominated in one category (like cinemetography or something) and it didn't win.

I saw it. Wasn't all that impressed.

[aden_nak]

4. Let's not figure out WHY. Let's just call them evil doers.

Sound like anyone we know?

[sendero]

5. Bullsh*t...

... people who are afraid of ideas do not believe in the strength of their own ideas and actions.

[Colorado Blue]

25. I don't think that's the point. These are parents who've lost

kids to suicide bombers. They're not making a political statement. They are mourning their children and deploring what they see as a glorification of terror.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/689041.html

[sendero]

29. Well..

.. that's a nice spin but I don't buy it for a second. Nobody who has lost a child to a terror attack should watch the film, it wasn't made for them.

As for "glorifying" terror, that's a loaded word used to silence anyone who would try to make any kind of sense of the whole thing.

I'm not buying it for a second.

[Jim Sagle]

37. No spin, just fact. Edumacate yourself.

[sendero]

48. I'm quite educated on the subject...

.. and I don't cotton to censorship of any kind for any reason. Period.

This is nothing less than a group of people who are AFRAID that folks might find the "terrorists" more sympathetic than they would be comfortable with.

If the Israelis make a film explaining why they find it justifiable to bulldoze the houses of families that are related to bombers, should the Academy find it has merit, I won't want to censor that either.

[Jim Sagle]

53. Peaceful protest isn't censorship. Your education missed that.

[sendero]

57. Protest...

... is against a government or corporate policy, not against a particular work. It's not protest, it is an attempt to squelch an idea that they don't want presented.

Nice try.

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sendero]

67. It's

... the same kind of "protest" as little old ladies writing to the FCC about Howard Stern.

It's an attempt to deny access of material you don't like to others.

Protest my ass.

These folks have simple rights that solve this problem completely. They can TURN OFF THEIR GODDAMNED TV if they don't like the program. They have NO RIGHT to change what I see.

[Jim Sagle]

68. When GOVERNMENT uses its POWER to PREVENT publication,

that's censorship. When PRIVATE CITIZENS WITHOUT such power SPEAK THEIR MINDS, it's NOT, it's FREE SPEECH.

Do you fucking get it now?

[sendero]

69. I get it just fine...

... some people are not comfortable with ideas being expressed that might discredit them, so they attempt to squelch said ideas.

It's censorship.

[Jim Sagle]

72. Like fuck it is. And I proved it. And you know it.

[Tom Joad]

85. Palestine lives. With tanks and helicopter gunships and bulldozers

and forced ethnic cleansing... in the last nearly 70 years Israel has done everything in its power to attack the people of Palestine, and even the concept of Palestine, first and foremost with its overwhelming violence in the occupied terratories, everything is done to make daily living impossible. To deprive the indigenous people of their homeland. This latest attempt to do away with the word Palestine is just part of that long history. This thing regarding the Academy Awards is trivial by comparison to so much else, but it is part of that history of denial of the basic human rights of Palestinians.

The reason folks like you are so angry is that despite all that effort, Palestine lives.

"Under the worst possible circumstances, Palestinian society has neither been defeated nor has it crumbled completely. Kids still go to school, doctors and nurses still take care of their patients, men and women go to work, organizations have their meetings, and people continue to live, which seems to be an offense to Sharon and the other extremists who simply want Palestinians either imprisoned or driven away altogether." Edward Said

[Colorado Blue]

44. WTF? SPIN?????

Please read this article. This isn't spin, it's the simple, tragic truth.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/689041.html

'"The bereaved parents said they had gathered more than 32,000 signatures on a petition against the nomination in the best foreign film category of "Paradise Now", a drama about two West Bank friends recruited to blow themselves up in Tel Aviv.

The controversial film was made by an Israeli Arab director and actors working with a Palestinian crew and locations. The producer was a Jewish Israeli and the funding was European.

Yossi Zur, whose teenage son Asaf was killed in a bus bombing, accused the film of sympathetically portraying a tactic hailed by many Palestinians waging a 5-year-old uprising.

"What they call 'Paradise Now' we call 'hell now', each and every day," Zur told reporters. "It is a mission of the free world not to give such movies a prize."'

These parents do not have to watch the movie. They are living it.

[sendero]

49. Next we'll have...

.. the fundies in our own country asking the Academy to exclude Brokeback Mountain because it "promotes the gay lifestyle" or some such nonsense.

I don't care for nonsense wherever it is coming from. If these folks don't want to hear about this film, they shouldn't watch the Oscars.

[Colorado Blue]

74. You don't get it do you. They probably realize they have no

chance of having the film yanked. Nor are they in any way trying to halt distribution of the film, or saying that people shouldn't watch it.

They're speaking for their children, who are DEAD. The suicide bombers have been given a voice. Their childrens' are irrevocably silenced.

That's a far cry from religious censorship, or esthetic film criticism; or anti-gay crap about Brokeback Mountain, which hasn't arisen in any case, except in isolated instances.

BTW: I'm an artist. I don't believe in censorship either. But your characterization of real grief as "nonsense" is upsetting.

[Andromeda]

64. You are the one who's spinning.

Whether a grieving parent sees the movie or not isn't the point---whether you "buy" it or not. Facts are pesky little things aren't they? Ignore them all you want but that's not going to make it any less true that losing a child is the most devastating thing anybody can go through and THAT is the reason these parents are protesting.

They are not protesting for political or idealogical reasons. It's because of the loss of their beloved children.

It's just plain wrong to reward making a movie that portrays murderers in a sympathetic light and completely ignores the plight of the victims.

The point is that this movie IS glorifying terrorists and the Culture of Death.

I see a big problem with that!

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Straight Story]

73. I think they just want to keep it from being considered for an award

That is a little different than people trying to squelch anyone ever seeing it.

I am sure if a similar movie about nazis was up for an award folks might be a tad upset, or one that shows the idiots who killed matthew shepard as just some normal scared teens was up for best picture we might be writing letters ourselves.

[Behind the Aegis]

83. You make some good points.

"...or one that shows the idiots who killed matthew shepard as just some normal scared teens was up for best picture we might be writing letters ourselves." That did happen. Remember the "Nightline" piece that made Matthew out to responsible for his death and the murderers as "misunderstood?" There was plenty of outrage here. Letters were written (or so people said).

What would be the reaction of the American people in Oklahoma had a film "understanding" why McVeigh and Nichols had to attack the Murrah Building because of their distress of the imperialistic US government? I wonder if they would want that type of film "glorified." Some how, I think many would be outraged if it were being praised.

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mallard]

79. Re: "They're not making a political statement"

How can politics really be removed from the equation? The denial of any such intent certainly doesn't effect the actual results that barring this film would imply - politically.

The seemingly endless struggle between Israel and the Palestinians should have this other side represented for a change, and the rare opportuntiy to 'permit' a Palestinian perspective the light of day at the Oscars is far more compelling than the specific concerns of victims on the one side - as we should certainly see there are always two sides to the coin.

I can imagine Hollywood giving this film the axe, especially with their long history of portraying Arabs as deadly terrorists. Ironically, this is also what this film is about.

The fact is that Palestinians suffer casualties at a rate triple those of their occupiers isn't widely understood, nor is the chronology of population displacement to accomodate the Jewish state.

Again, I think the Academy will 'bend' in favor of these Israeli victims, adding to the sense of political disempowerment, denial and resentment from the unheard from side - while America is sold on that image that they just don't (morally) deserve to be heard from.

Politics aside - guffaw!

[DBoon]

6. And if an Arab group called for withdrawing an Israeli film

that portrayed Israeli settlers sympathetically and explored their motives, what then?

[yppahemnkm]

8. Why is this any different

Than trying to keep the Muslim cartoons out of the press?

[Hardrada]

9. More religio-ideological censorship. Screw it!

Show the Flix!

[smirkymonkey]

10. Agreed.

If it's offensive, don't watch it. I am sick of religious people thinking that entire societies must bow to their whims.

[Colorado Blue]

26. Again, you're missing the point. From a philosophical POV

I agree the film should be seen.

These people aren't protesting from that position, however. This is personal. It isn't coming from some desire to impose censorship.

They have LOST THEIR KIDS and are making a statement.

"A group of Israelis who lost children to Palestinian suicide bombings appealed on Wednesday to organisers of next week's Academy Awards to disqualify a film exploring the reasoning behind such attacks.

The bereaved parents said they had gathered more than 32,000 signatures on a petition against the nomination in the best foreign film category of "Paradise Now", a drama about two West Bank friends recruited to blow themselves up in Tel Aviv.

The controversial film was made by an Israeli Arab director and actors working with a Palestinian crew and locations. The producer was a Jewish Israeli and the funding was European. Yossi Zur, whose teenage son Asaf was killed in a bus bombing, accused the film of sympathetically portraying a tactic hailed by many Palestinians waging a 5-year-old uprising.

"What they call 'Paradise Now' we call 'hell now', each and every day," Zur told reporters. "It is a mission of the free world not to give such movies a prize."'

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/689041.html

[Andromeda]

47. Because the cartoons...

don't advocate killing anybody. They just make fun of a religious figure and that in itself doesn't endanger anybody's life.

[Colorado Blue]

77. Apparently it does - the cartoonists'.

Maybe people will see the difference between the peaceful presentation of a petition, initiated by grieving parents, and death threats issued against cartoonists?

This isn't censorship. Killing Theo van Gogh - THAT was "censorship" in no uncertain terms.

[Andromeda]

86. I'll bet the cartoonists didn't bargain for that either.

[Violet_Crumble]

89. The film doesn't advocate killing anyone...

Don't know about you, but when I go out and see a movie that's about any real-life murders, I don't take that as a message that the film is advocating killing people. I'm kinda amused at how many folk in this thread haven't seen the movie but are 110% certain that they KNOW what it's all about...

btw, one of those cartoons you claim was just making fun of a religious figure was of Mohammed with a bomb on his head, and it was stereotyping Islam as a religion of terrorism. In anyone's book that's bigotry...

Violet...

[Violet_Crumble]

90. Republishing the cartoons definately did endanger lives!

They were being republished and there were some at DU having a ball insisting that they should be published over and over again, even after the first deaths had occurred. In itself, no cartoon or words endanger anyones lives - it's how people react that endangers people's lives, and in cases like that, it's blatantly clear to everyone that it would put lives at risk....

Violet...

[Colorado Blue]

75. It's totally different. They're not trying to prevent people from

seeing it and I'm quite sure they realize there's no hope of getting the film yanked from Oscar consideration. It has already won awards in Europe.

This is an attempt to give the voices of the dead, their innocent dead children, one last breathe of life.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Behind the Aegis]

14. .

:eyes:

[Coastie for Truth]

15. Might I suggest a scriptural reading

Genesis XXXVIII, 9-10

[Andromeda]

59. I always say if the shoe fits....

:eyes:

[occuserpens]

16. They are killing American cinema as usual

No, Paradise Now is not nice and fluffy. But artistically, it is excellent. What is remarkable, nobody campaigned against Walk on Water which is clearly Islamophobic.

[Colorado Blue]

27. Who is "they"? The Israeli group which is protesting LOST

THEIR CHILDREN, dude.

To suicide bombers.

"They're" not trying to "kill American cinema as usual."

Sheese.

People have a right to see this movie and people who've lost their kids to suicide bombers have a right to complain about it.

[occuserpens]

35. What about "rights"?

This movie is a work of art and it needs to be considered as such. Personal grief does not make one an art critic

[Colorado Blue]

43. Did you feel the same way about the Danish cartoons?

What about the rights of artists not to go around with fatwas and prices on their heads?

Salmon Rushie is lucky to have escaped, one of his associates was killed and two were injured. Theo van Gogh was killed in the street - beaten to death, his throat slashed, because he helped produce a movie.

A MOVIE.

These parents aren't claiming to be art critics. They are claiming to be grieving parents and nobody is making a movie about their lost children. They were just little kids for pete's sake.

Who will speak for them if their parents don't?

The movie will go on and live a long life. Those children won't.

[DemExpat]

19. The film will not be pulled IMO, but I do have some sympathy for

the grieving parents of murdered children
who initiated this petition - so I see it not just in terms of religious or political censorship.

DemEx

[occuserpens]

23. Grief of war victims' parents

is completely understandable - until it is weaponized and becomes a tool of ideological war. Then it is just war as usual.

[DemExpat]

24. True.....

DemEx

[Colorado Blue]

31. This is NOT a tool of ideological war. Sheese.

What about GRIEVING PARENTS don't you get? YOU are the one who's trying to make it into something it isn't.

[Colorado Blue]

45. Thank you. It ISN'T about politics or religion or censorship.

They're just grieving and want somebody to remember their children.

Nobody makes movies about ordinary kids who get on a bus one day and don't come back.

Israeli kids all carry cellphones. If they don't answer -

[Cats Against Frist]

20. Fucking whiners

It only goes to show that this "mock outrage," is simply about spite, when, in the article, it states that the people complained about the film being listed as being from "Palestine," when Palestine "isn't even a state. Give me a fucking break.

Violence is terrible, but it's telling when people wish to shut down any investigation into why the violence occurs. It threatens all the mythologies.

[Colorado Blue]

28. Since when are people who've lost their children, whiners?

Get real.

[Andromeda]

55. Parents who lost children are not "fucking whiners."

How would you like somebody to call you a "fucking whiner" if you lost a child? And there is nothing in this protest that is about spite either.

These are parents who have suffered unbearable losses and wish to speak out against a film that legitimizes the agents that caused the deaths of their loved ones.

What is disturbing to me is the attempt to glamorize or humanize suicide bombers who glorify death more than life. There is no mention of the innocent victims or their families who are left to grieve.

[eyl]

87. Not to mention the fact

that most of the people involved in the film are Israeli

[Terran1212]

21. From what I know, Paradise Now is in hope for Peace

Yes, it humanizes the suicide bombers; that's reality. I understand why grieving families would be opposed, but the Academy must stand strong!

[President Kerry]

22. How about letting the viewer decide?

Right-wingers are the same everywhere. They think in black and white, and no shades of gray (us vs. the evil). HOw are you ever going to solve ANY problem without looking into its root causes.

[Colorado Blue]

34. Who says these parents are rightwingers? You don't know

them!

I'm amazed by some of these comments. I really am.

I think the movie, which is apparently excellent, should be seen. But I certainly understand the parents' point of view. Don't you? Have you even TRIED to put yourself in their point of view?

I really do not get the response people have to their grief. They have a right to speak here. If people are humanizing the bombers, somebody sure as hell as a right to humanize the victims.

That's the real point of their protest. The film won't, shouldn't, be yanked from the Oscar nominations - it should stand on it's own artistically. But just as people have a right to protest a war, these parents have a right to speak for their lost children.

[President Kerry]

42. What I am referring to is their wishes to censor a piece of

cinematography. That's what I take issue with. I fully understand their grief, and their anger. But it does not mean that anything to look into the minds of bombers should be dismissed as "terrorist sympathizing". I hope you get my analogy here.

I've not seen the movie, so I'm not going to comment whether it's a "romantization" of suicide bombers. Both killers and victims are humans. The quality of the killers as human beings is another issue, but they are humans. I don't believe calling something "evil", and censoring the hell out of it, is going to get anyone closer to helping this tragic situation.

[Colorado Blue]

46. They're not censoring a work of art. I'm against that as well.

They're just saying they don't think it should be celebrated. Not that it should be cut, or unseen.

I think it should be seen. Art can bring people together. I hope, if people all see each other as people, we'll stop hurting each other.

[stepnw1f]

92. That Was Really Well Said

I want to learn more about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. And am open to both sides.

[Colorado Blue]

30. I am really shocked, reading some of the above messages,

that people have somehow jumped to the conclusion that these grieving parents are somehow waging ideological or religious war.

THAT IS BULLSHIT.

From my point of view, one of the purposes of art at its best is to help people see each other more clearly, to humanize one another. I haven't seen "Paradise Now" but I understand it's attempting to do that, as is "Munich".

However, I certainly can understand why people who've lost their loved ones to terror bombers might object to a movie which some might feel, excuses their actions or somehow glamorizes them.

They have a right to speak. But their very personal point of view should NOT be seen as trying to impose some form of political or ideological censorship. They're speaking out of deep, horrible personal pain.

I think it's pretty strange that people somehow missed this fact and jumped to the conclusion that "they" (whoever "they" are) are trying to ruin the movie industry or impose censorship on the rest of us.

But then, maybe people just reacted to the headline and didn't bother to read the article.

[JerseygirlCT]

33. Yup. While I don't think their protest should

spur the academy to the action they want, I do think they're acting out of pain, not politics.

[occuserpens]

36. What about seeing the movie first?

You could wait, see it, and then discuss the movie meaningfully.

[Jim Sagle]

39. I wouldn't give the makers of such a movie 2 shits much less 2 cents.

[stepnw1f]

61. why?

[Jim Sagle]

70. Because suicide bombing sucks, and so do those who promote it.

Even film-makers.

Feel free to go see it.

[mallard]

80. Re: "...suicide bombing sucks, and so do those who promote it."

You mean like the IDF when they bulldoze down houses or happen to shoot litle kids by accident, etc?

Nevermind who started the war, while you're at it with the condemnation thing.

The idea is people do react poorly when so disenfranchized as to be expelled from there own property by contrived war - any people; ethnicity/religion non-specific.

[occuserpens]

71. Why talk about things

you don't know?

[Colorado Blue]

41. I have NO OBJECTION to the movie. I am objecting to THE

COMMENTS, which have been posted here, which are rude, demeaning and insensitive to the fact that these parents have lost their children.

They are speaking for their lost children. They are NOT trying to ruin YOUR movie experience.

Meanwhile, perhaps a little less stereotyping, or impugning other people's motives, might be in order, since we're discussing humanization?

[Megahurtz]

38. I don't believe in censoring anything.

This is just another form of opression.
People need to know what goes on.
If the Isrealis don't like it they don't have to watch it!!!

I'm tired of people asking us to "jump!" and we're just supposed to bow
and ask "how high?" when it comes to film, writing, and the press etc.

They need to just accept and get over it, or ignore it altogether.

[Jim Sagle]

40. Did you say the same about the cartoons?

[stepnw1f]

51. Is Censoring the Cartoons the Same as Censoring This Movie?

The cartoons were ridiculing a Diety and those that follow that diety.

[Jim Sagle]

52. I'll take that as a "no.".

[stepnw1f]

60. You Didn't Ask Me, I Asked You

Have you seen the movie? Because I haven't... maybe you could tell me how the two are the same.

[Megahurtz]

54. Yes, I said the same thing about the cartoons. n/t

[Jim Sagle]

56. Kewl.

[negativenihil]

50. "The Academy asks Israelis to stfu" n/t

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Harper_is_Bush]

62. After the reaction to the depictions of Mohammed this film is fine.

I don't see anything being off limits anymore. Free speach trumps everything.

Holocaust denials? No problem. Should no longer be illegal in the 9 or 10 Western nations it's illegal in.

Films about suicide bombs? Please. Let's not sacrafice free speach here! I mean, how can the public know what all the fuss is about if we don't get to see it?

[Colorado Blue]

76. They are not trying to get the film stopped. Just not to be

considered for an Oscar and I think they realize that isn't going to happen either.

This is just a PROTEST.

Sheese.

[Harper_is_Bush]

91. Oh. So a "protest" does not have the goal of stopping something?

What about holocaust denial? Do you think that should be illegal as it is in so many countries, or have the Mohammed depictions changed how we should look at that?

[Scurrilous]

63. Paradise Now:

http://wip.warnerbros.com/paradisenow/

Academy Award Nominee Best Foreign Language Film

Winner Best Foreign Language Film Golden Globes 2006

Winner Best Foreign Language Film Nat'l Board of Review 2005

Nominee Best Foreign Film Independent Spirit Award 2006

Nominee Best Foreign Language Film Broadcast Film Critics Assoc. 2005

Winner European Screenwriter Award European Film Academy 2005

Winner Blue Angel Award Best European Film 2005

Winner Amnesty International Award 2005



Paradise Now @ rottentomatoes (88% fresh):

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/paradise_now/

[HuffleClaw]

78. censorship in any guise is still censorship

and that is that.

[fujiyama]

82. I see no evidence of censorship

in that they are trying to get it blocked from theaters or being shown.

They just don't want it to receive the award.

I know nothing about the film and I find suicide bombing abhorrent, but I do see why it would make an intruiging subject for a film. And inherrantly, such a topic will be controversial.

The Academy should judge the film on its artistic merits with respect to the others nominated. Ultimately, that's all there is to this process. I'm sure for the families of those murdered by such suicide bombers, this is painful and I feel for them, but I don't believe those would be grounds to not award the film.

[occuserpens]

95. I agree completely

[cali]

93. Hysterical.

Has anyone commenting here actually seen the movie? Anyone?

This thread is just a proxy war for the usual suspects. Support Palestine? The signers of the petitition are evil oppressors and are trying to shut down debate on the I/P issue. (If that's their intent, they're doing a lousy job. This will surely raise visibility of the film) Support Israel? Humanizing Palestinians who carry out terror attacks is evil propaganda.

I look forward to seeing this movie. Whatever else they may be, suicide bombers are human. We need to understand that, and understand that it's a complex issue.

Labeling this as censorship is just screwy. It's not censorship. These folks don't have the power to censor anything. It's protest. I think they would have done better to not ask the Academy to drop consideration of the pic, but to simply express their pain.