On the other hand, in Iran, the public baths, default assumption of heterosexuality, pervasive intolerance, oppressive theocracy, and threat of death can make for some very exciting gay sex.
Had it not been for the avant garde production of 2 Girls 1 Cup, America might not have been so receptive to Slumdog's poo play. Let's give credit where credit is due.
Let's Send the Iranians a big gift basket stuffed with copies of Glitter and The Happening, we'll see if they want to keep screening our cinema after that.
Uh, you guys? Don't forget that he loses his brother at the exact moment as he wins the money. So I don't really see the cloying sentimentality you lot are referring to.
Is it perfect? No. But no American would have made this movie (well, not unless Hilary Duff was cast as the titular character WHICH, YES, WOULD BE AWESOME).
@Ensconced: Yes, Salim is such an interesting character - how do their paths diverge so greatly? And despite Salim doing some bad stuff, he almost always saves the more passive Jamal. Is there any justice? Not much. Jamal might have the money and the girl, but look at all he's lost, and he's clearly marked by it; why else would those memories have stuck with him?
The gameshow is kind of an elaborate conceit for trawling through the life of a horribly abused person born into poverty. If it's analysed too much, it falls apart, but I didn't hear anyone complaining when about that when Bruce Willis was dead all along.
The dance at the end is misjudged, tonally - I have no time for Bollywood conventions anyway - but I took it as almost a DVD extra. I mean, dead characters come back to life and start dancing. It's like those fake deleted scenes that play next to the end credits of Pixar films.
If I was an Iranian I would take them all hostage For the insults. However since I am a Sicilian Italian I would just pay someone to break their legs for making crappy movies.
This reminds me of my failed launch of a protest group after Brokeback. As if I'd ever be caught dead in cowboy boots! The nerve. I would be caught in Jake Gyllenhaal, though, so I disbanded the group.
If the Iranians would show the world how many fabulous babes are part of their population, the world would look more kindly on them. Closer to home, take a look at the Persian beauties around the Westwood section of Los Angeles.
hey, foreign and controversial contries - if you want hollywood to love you....hire a british director to make a movie centered around your most attractive young citizens being in love and competing in a game show.
Iranians are always portrayed as villains with no redeeming qualities, it's been that way as long as I can remember. There are lots of dictatorships and oppressive governments in the world, but it's Iranians (or "Middle Eastern types") that get the one dimensional villain treatment consistently. I think it's an ethic stereotype and prejudice thing.
Also, the italian mob movies, while some italians had problems with them, always paint italians as having good qualities as well like being fun and stylish. The mobsters are usually heroes or anti-heroes viewers root for. That's a different thing.
@mostlymartian: The Battle of Thermopylae from the movie 300 did actually take place.
When terrorists in film are identified as being from Iran, is that a stereotype? Terrorist do come from Iran and Iraq and Saudi Arabia. I would be happy to see a movie that portrays Iranians in a good light. But if the movie doesn't it's based on realties.
@mostlymartian: Well, the portrayal of the Ayatollah in The Wrestler was a joke (at the expense of wrestling, not Iranians) and 300 is a movie that took place thousands of years ago. I agree that there should be more movies that portray Iranians (and other people from the Middle East/of Middle Eastern descent) in a positive light, but from my perspective these particular movies aren't doing any harm.
Of course the Battle of Thermopylae took place. However, there was a decision to choose a particular historical battle where it was Iranian aggressing against westerners (as opposed to, say, the battles of the crusades or the repeated years of Roman attacks to try to take over the Persian empire in which the Christians and Romans were not only aggressors but they conducted themselves in a terrible and barbaric way compared to their Middle Eastern adversaries) and present the Persian leader as a repulsive one dimensional villain.
And, sure, the Persians were trying to take over Greece, but contrast that to the way Alexander portrayed the conquest of Persia by Greeks.
Terrorists aren't only Middle Eastern, and there are millions and millions of Middle Eastern people who aren't terrorists. But whether it's Airforce One or whatever, you would never know that from Hollywood. Even when movie terrorists are from outside the Middle East (especially if they are white) like IRA bombers all of a sudden they are played by loveable old Brad Pitt and the movie presents their side too usually.
When the US has spent years behaving criminally against Middle Eastern countries and people, maybe it's time to question the dehumanization of Middle Eastern people in American films.
@mostlymartian: Though not Iranian, Sayid from Lost is from Iraq and not evil! And his flashbacks about terrorism and serving in the guard were very nuanced and multi-dimensional.
I don't know, I understand the point and agree, to an extent, but let's not get all into superlatives.
This is not like Italians and the Godfather. That was an example of people taking advantage of their right to free speech, to protest what they believed was a wrongful portrayal of Italinas.
This is an example of a murderous dictatorship trying to impose their rules against free speech on citizens of another country.
Maybe we should appologize for not hanging homosexuals too.
@uncivily obedient: Not a murderous dictatorship anymore--that was during the days of the Shah, who we installed in Iran after covertly (and very illegally) overthrowing their democratically-elected, pro-Western president in '54 or so via, yes, terrorism. Look it up.
And why did the CIA do that? Because he was demanding that the British not keep all the oil profits for themselves.
Try to get a clue before you type, ignorant jackhole.
@GuyBitchy: Yes. Besides the public hanging of homosexuals (lavat is evil, you see), support for pretty much anyone with an agenda of terror, the rabid enforcement of a public dress code that involves women covering nearly every piece of skin and the desire to ban most music and art in the public square (and beyond), they're A-OK!
@Ensconced: Thank you. Clearly, those without a point or knowledge simply parrot flimsy Fox News generalizations and distortions like grunting apes, then pat themselves on the back for their bravery.
Delightful spectacle invariably. So easy, any vapid chump can do it!
03/18/09
03/18/09
The F-word is "French", I take it?
03/02/09
03/02/09
03/02/09
Uh, you guys? Don't forget that he loses his brother at the exact moment as he wins the money. So I don't really see the cloying sentimentality you lot are referring to.
Is it perfect? No. But no American would have made this movie (well, not unless Hilary Duff was cast as the titular character WHICH, YES, WOULD BE AWESOME).
03/02/09
The gameshow is kind of an elaborate conceit for trawling through the life of a horribly abused person born into poverty. If it's analysed too much, it falls apart, but I didn't hear anyone complaining when about that when Bruce Willis was dead all along.
The dance at the end is misjudged, tonally - I have no time for Bollywood conventions anyway - but I took it as almost a DVD extra. I mean, dead characters come back to life and start dancing. It's like those fake deleted scenes that play next to the end credits of Pixar films.
03/01/09
03/02/09
03/01/09
[www.southparkstudios.com]
03/02/09
How do you think Mr. Garrison is weighing in on this issue?
03/01/09
03/01/09
03/01/09
03/01/09
03/01/09
Oh yes.
03/01/09
Terrorist #5
Terrorist/Rapist #2
Car Bomber
03/02/09
03/01/09
03/01/09
Also, the italian mob movies, while some italians had problems with them, always paint italians as having good qualities as well like being fun and stylish. The mobsters are usually heroes or anti-heroes viewers root for. That's a different thing.
03/01/09
When terrorists in film are identified as being from Iran, is that a stereotype? Terrorist do come from Iran and Iraq and Saudi Arabia. I would be happy to see a movie that portrays Iranians in a good light. But if the movie doesn't it's based on realties.
03/01/09
Seriously, though, for both of you, one word: Persepolis.
03/01/09
03/01/09
03/01/09
Of course the Battle of Thermopylae took place. However, there was a decision to choose a particular historical battle where it was Iranian aggressing against westerners (as opposed to, say, the battles of the crusades or the repeated years of Roman attacks to try to take over the Persian empire in which the Christians and Romans were not only aggressors but they conducted themselves in a terrible and barbaric way compared to their Middle Eastern adversaries) and present the Persian leader as a repulsive one dimensional villain.
And, sure, the Persians were trying to take over Greece, but contrast that to the way Alexander portrayed the conquest of Persia by Greeks.
Terrorists aren't only Middle Eastern, and there are millions and millions of Middle Eastern people who aren't terrorists. But whether it's Airforce One or whatever, you would never know that from Hollywood. Even when movie terrorists are from outside the Middle East (especially if they are white) like IRA bombers all of a sudden they are played by loveable old Brad Pitt and the movie presents their side too usually.
When the US has spent years behaving criminally against Middle Eastern countries and people, maybe it's time to question the dehumanization of Middle Eastern people in American films.
03/01/09
03/01/09
I don't know, I understand the point and agree, to an extent, but let's not get all into superlatives.
03/01/09
This is an example of a murderous dictatorship trying to impose their rules against free speech on citizens of another country.
Maybe we should appologize for not hanging homosexuals too.
03/01/09
And why did the CIA do that? Because he was demanding that the British not keep all the oil profits for themselves.
Try to get a clue before you type, ignorant jackhole.
03/01/09
03/04/09
Delightful spectacle invariably. So easy, any vapid chump can do it!