Acre municipality vetoes screening of acclaimed suicide bomber movie

[Scurrilous]

<snip>

"The Acre municipality and the national network of "Matnas" community centers canceled at the last minute Wednesday a screening of the controversial film "Paradise Now" about Palestinian suicide bombers.

"Paradise Now" won a Golden Globe for best foreign film and was nominated for an Oscar in the same category.

The El-Yatir organization, dedicated to the cultural development of the city and responsible for the scheduled screening, maintains extremist Jewish groups pressured the municipality to cancel it.

City officials say that the decision to cancel the screening stemmed from considerations of sensitivity towards the city's residents. They fear that screening the film, which depicts the inner struggle of two suicide bombers, could disrupt the delicate co-existence between Jews and Arabs in the city.

Sami Hawari, a member of the El-Yatir organization, said that the auditorium was rented about a month ago and that auditorium management was aware that the film "Paradise Now" was to be shown. However on Monday, auditorium representatives cancelled the screening two days before it was scheduled to take place. Hawari said the auditorium justified the cancellation by saying extremist Jewish groups threatened to demonstrate at the site against the showing of the film and also exerted pressure on the city to cancel the event."

more

[bemildred]

1. Their fears are probably well founded.

I don't know if that justifies the self-censorship, or whatever you would call it; but I expect that movie would get a lot of people upset one way or another.

[Tom Joad]

2. It was not "self" censorship....

It is very clearly government censorship.

It is a poltical movie. People have a right to see it. I would heartily recommend it, i have seen it myself.

[bemildred]

3. The two ideas are not incompatible, but I chose the usage I did

because ordinarily, in my experience, government censorship would suggest something larger than a municipality or the owners of a theater, and also that there was direct or implied force behind it. Which is not to imply that you are incorrect, just that my usage is acceptable too, and I had a reason for it. I would think by now you would know my opinions about censorship.

[Igel]

4. Perhaps if the extremist Jewish group were allowed to

watch the film and if they found problems make cuts, then they would have no problem having it shown.

But then they might find common ground with their counterparts.

'But (Mr. Sibbah, Pal. culture minister) is less sure about (showing) the Oscar-nominated Palestinian film, Paradise Now, which shows the preparation of suicide bombers for an attack on Israelis.
'The film's questioning of suicide attacks does not sit well with a party that glorifies such deaths.
' "There are problems, there are some scenes, some observations, some pictures. We can negotiate. I will see it first. If I need to cut it I will cut. This is normal. Every country has censors. But we have no problem showing it," he said.'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1747882,00.html?gusrc=rss