Matrix producer plans Muhammad biopic

[Rrose Selavy]

When I first saw the headline I read it as another bio of Muhammad Ali though maybe there will be a big fight anyway....


Barrie Osborne, part of the Oscar-winning team behind the Lord of the Rings films, says the new production 'will educate people about the true meaning of Islam'

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 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/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.





http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/nov/02/matrix-producer-plans-muhammad-biopic

[EvilSmurf]

When I first saw the headline I read it as another bio of Muhammad Ali though maybe there will be a big fight anyway....





http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/nov/02/matrix-producer-plans-muhammad-biopic

He ought to be worried:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Message_(1976_film)

[icerat]

that's going to require some interesting techniques, a movie about someone's life without ever showing them in the movie .... :covereyes

ETA: from the (broken) wikipedia link above (correct here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Message_(1976_film))) about th 1976 film -

In accordance with Muslim beliefs regarding depictions of Muhammad, he could not be depicted on-screen nor his voice be heard. This rule extends to his wives, his daughters and his sons-in-law. This leaves Muhammad's uncle Hamza (Anthony Quinn) and his adopted son Zayd (Damien Thomas) as the central characters. During the battles of Badr and Uhud depicted in the movie, Hamza is in nominal command even though the actual fighting was led by Muhammad.

Whenever Muhammad is present or very close by, his presence is indicated by light organ music. His words, as he speaks them, are repeated by someone else such as Hamza, Zayd and Bilal. When a scene calls for him to be present, the action is filmed from his point of view. Others in the scene nod to the unheard dialogue.

The closest the film comes to a depiction of Muhammad or his immediate family is the view of Ali's sword Zulfiqar during the battle scenes, as well as Muhammad's she-camel and staff in the scenes at the Kaaba or in Medina.

[GreNME]

It's really a pity that the over-reactive and most fundamentalist are the only ones that get recognition when the issue of Muhammad's depiction comes up. The Hadith in question from which so many base the rule on is very specifically stipulating against making religious or worshipful depictions of Muhammad. It's not like Islam has completely forbade depictions of their Prophet throughout their history, since the Ottomans and Persians (among others) created plenty of depictions of him. The current view by the fundamentalists is based on two things: 1) the long-standing Western misconception that Islam involved the worship of Muhammad-- for quite some time, Muslims were called "Mohammadans" in Europe-- and 2) the advent of photos and motion picture created a ridiculous backlash reaction in the Muslim world, mostly by the prominent (and loud) fundamentalists of the time. That defensive attitude has remained constant regarding any depiction of Muhammad as a result, though the views are gradually changing among the more moderate (and numerous) Muslims. Even Ayatollah Ali al Sistani has stated publicly that depictions of Muhammad aren't necessarily forbidden as long as it's done respectfully, and considering that al Sistani wouldn't necessarily be considered a "liberal" voice in the Muslim world that's a very stark contrast to the common misconception that all Muslims consider the issue absolute and closed.

[geni]

that's going to require some interesting techniques, a movie about someone's life without ever showing them in the movie .... :covereyes


Nothing new though. Fair number of the early films depicting Jesus took that aproach. If the film maker knows what it is doing it can work well enough.

[Tormac]

I’ve seen “The Message” and thought that the way that the movie portrayed the prophet Mohamed worked with the story telling. It was very clever, with scenes shot from Mohamed’s point of view to get around the restriction of not showing him.

But then I loved Anthony Quinn’s work as Hamza, I hope this works out well, as a work of fiction the story is a great one.

The only story of a major political leader that I can think of that has more natural drama and sounds like a made for Hollywood tale is Genghis Khan’s.

Hopefully no is “fatwaed” over this movie.

[Arcade22]

Who will play Aisha? Will she even be in the movie, or will she be edited out so they can put the pedophile in better light?

[TimCallahan]

"In accordance with Islamic law, the prophet will not actually be depicted on screen."

Interesting: a biography about someone who isn't there. This should be particularly interesting when it comes to Mohammad's initial revelation in a cave on a mountain, where only he and the angel Gabriel are present. Is it acceptable to visually represent an angel? If not, then maybe they'll have to do the whole thing with shadow puppets.

[Rrose Selavy]

He'll be a cloud like Galactus in the FF movie with a Mark Hamill voiceover.

[geni]

"In accordance with Islamic law, the prophet will not actually be depicted on screen."

Interesting: a biography about someone who isn't there. This should be particularly interesting when it comes to Mohammad's initial revelation in a cave on a mountain, where only he and the angel Gabriel are present. Is it acceptable to visually represent an angel? If not, then maybe they'll have to do the whole thing with shadow puppets.

I think it would depend on which bit of islam. But in any case external shot of the Cave of Hira (either model or digitaly edited to remove the more recent paint) with voices and lights.

[Third Eye Open]

"In accordance with Islamic law, the prophet will not actually be depicted on screen."


Pussies.

[Hux]

Anthony Quinn played his usual role as Zorba the Muslim. Never renowned for his broad depiction of characters.

[geni]

Pussies.

Or maybe they want to make a film and not a media bunfight.

[Third Eye Open]

Or maybe they want to make a film and not a media bunfight.

If they wanted to make a film I'm sure it could be a much better and more interesting film if they didn't force themselves to go through the trouble of trying to appease a small group of lunatics who aren't even going to watch the thing.

[GreyICE]

If they wanted to make a film I'm sure it could be a much better and more interesting film if they didn't force themselves to go through the trouble of trying to appease a small group of lunatics who aren't even going to watch the thing.

But will happily kill them.

[Rrose Selavy]

Alnoor Holdings, a media company that has created a $200million film production fund to invest in Hollywood and international projects, has hired the cleric Sheikh Yousef al-Qaradawi as their lead theological consultant for the film.
Sheikh al-Qaradawi is one of the Sunni Islam’s most high-profile theologians thanks to his popular slot hosting a television show on al-Jazeera. He is admired by many moderate Muslims and was recently described by the government’s senior counter-terrorism official as “one of the most articulate critics of al-Qaeda in the Islamic world”.
He is also a highly controversial figure who was refused entry to Britain last year because of his views. He has reportedly condoned the Holocaust, supported the stoning of homosexuals and praised suicide bombers in Iraq, not to mention telling an interviewer that he considered Shia Islam a heretical branch of the faith.
According to the Gulf Times newspaper he told journalists in Doha that the film was a response to “the crusader-styled distortion of Islam [that] continues to influence [the] world population today.”
“I will say we Muslims have not exerted sufficient efforts to correct the fake tales as Christians have used [in] the media. The life of the Prophet Muhammad is richly documented from the cattle he raised to the weapons he used to his private life.”


http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/article6900021.ece

[geni]

If they wanted to make a film I'm sure it could be a much better and more interesting film if they didn't force themselves to go through the trouble of trying to appease a small group of lunatics who aren't even going to watch the thing.

Why? Film makeing techniques for shooting films about people without showing them exist. They haven't been much used for the last few decades so it will be interesting to see how they do it in the 21st century.

[hamelekim]

The Islamists are going to flip out and kill anyone involved in this movie, if it happens.

It's rather disgusting to see Islam on the rise. Even if you are an Atheist, at least Christianity is far more accepting of critics. When do you see Christians calling for holy war and making death threats against people who make fun of Christianity? Besides one or two crazy people that is.

[BobHaulk]

i wondered if it was possible to make a duller film than lord of the rings.

[geni]

The Islamists are going to flip out and kill anyone involved in this movie, if it happens.

Err Ninja would generaly be budddist or shinto.


It's rather disgusting to see Islam on the rise. Even if you are an Atheist, at least Christianity is far more accepting of critics. When do you see Christians calling for holy war and making death threats against people who make fun of Christianity? Besides one or two crazy people that is.

What does that have to do with the movie?

[TimCallahan]

The Islamists are going to flip out and kill anyone involved in this movie, if it happens.

It's rather disgusting to see Islam on the rise. Even if you are an Atheist, at least Christianity is far more accepting of critics. When do you see Christians calling for holy war and making death threats against people who make fun of Christianity? Besides one or two crazy people that is.

Dr. Robert Ellwood wrote a book a number of years ago titled The Future of Faith.In it, he noted that religions seem to go through a series of predictable cycles. Islam right now, according to Ellwood, is where Chritianity was in the 1600s, the period of religious wars, culminating in the Thirty Years War, when Protestants and Catholics readily murdered and massacered each other.

[hgc]

It's really a pity that the over-reactive and most fundamentalist are the only ones that get recognition when the issue of Muhammad's depiction comes up. The Hadith in question from which so many base the rule on is very specifically stipulating against making religious or worshipful depictions of Muhammad. It's not like Islam has completely forbade depictions of their Prophet throughout their history, since the Ottomans and Persians (among others) created plenty of depictions of him. The current view by the fundamentalists is based on two things: 1) the long-standing Western misconception that Islam involved the worship of Muhammad-- for quite some time, Muslims were called "Mohammadans" in Europe-- and 2) the advent of photos and motion picture created a ridiculous backlash reaction in the Muslim world, mostly by the prominent (and loud) fundamentalists of the time. That defensive attitude has remained constant regarding any depiction of Muhammad as a result, though the views are gradually changing among the more moderate (and numerous) Muslims. Even Ayatollah Ali al Sistani has stated publicly that depictions of Muhammad aren't necessarily forbidden as long as it's done respectfully, and considering that al Sistani wouldn't necessarily be considered a "liberal" voice in the Muslim world that's a very stark contrast to the common misconception that all Muslims consider the issue absolute and closed.


A couple points:

1) The western misconception that Muslims worship Mohammed is the cause for the ban on images of images of him (even if not the source). That sounds extremely unlikely. I'd like to see some more about how this is known.

2) Muslims do worship Mohammed. They may not call it worship, but that's sure what it looks like to me. It's kind of like the way Catholics worship the virgin, but even more so.

[Hux]

Number 2 is correct. He is their icon since they have none for Allah. They read the Haddith avidly which is all about the prophet and nothing to do with his messages. They even want to shoot, shave and sh*t like him; all are prescribed. Which is why, in the modern world, an awful lot dress in his ways and look as if their heads are on upside down, having adopted the prophets tonsure. Quite a few of them wouldn't know if it were raining unless the prophet said so.

[INRM]

I just hope this won't cause muslims in the United States to do anything violent. It could be considered a terrorist attack and a justification of Martial Law.

Obama seems to defend a number of Bush's policies and I wouldn't be surprised if a terrorist attack happens he would react similar to Bush.

[Darth Rotor]

i wondered if it was possible to make a duller film than lord of the rings.

:eye-poppi

Cardinal Fang, read the charges ...

[Darth Rotor]

2) Muslims do worship Mohammed. They may not call it worship, but that's sure what it looks like to me. It's kind of like the way Catholics worship the virgin, but even more so.

I had to look this up a few years ago, to answer my daughter's question for CCD.

The term used is Venerate, not worship.

Don't blame me, blame the RCC. I think the Muslims feel about the same way regarding The Prophet, and a few other key figures early in the faith: he is venerated, since there is no god but Allah, and all the rest.

DR

[TimCallahan]

I'm thinking that one way around not showing Mohammad would be for an actor, whose head and shoulders would be cropped out, could have his hand made up like a face, sort of like the character "Johnney" that the Spanish ventriloquist, Senor Wences used to create by pinting his hand, when he appeared on the Ed Sullivan Show. Then the nhand would move like "Johnney" and an off stage actor could recite Mohammad's lines.

Of course, for really strict followers of the Hadith, maybe even depicting the prophet's voice would be taboo. In that case, his bio would portray him as a totally off-stage character, like Godot in "Waiting for Godot."

[hgc]

I'm thinking that one way around not showing Mohammad would be for an actor, whose head and shoulders would be cropped out, could have his hand made up like a face, sort of like the character "Johnney" that the Spanish ventriloquist, Senor Wences used to create by pinting his hand, when he appeared on the Ed Sullivan Show. Then the nhand would move like "Johnney" and an off stage actor could recite Mohammad's lines.

Of course, for really strict followers of the Hadith, maybe even depicting the prophet's voice would be taboo. In that case, his bio would portray him as a totally off-stage character, like Godot in "Waiting for Godot."

Ha! They should do it the neighbor Wilson on Home Improvement. Hilarious tricks to obscure his face.

[Hux]

One way to solve the problem would be to not waste time making a biopic about some nasty little Turd that isn't allowed to be shown. Are they expecting to make box office with this crap?

[TimCallahan]

If they ever give up this silly idea of not showing the Prophet they could go to http://www.turntoislam.com/forum/showthread.php?t=15806.