You don't see that too often anymore without muslim activists groups complaining about discrimination. Its no longer PC to attribute muslims with terrorism. Even though the threat of Islamic terrorists have increased. I'm just curious if this pre-9/11 film got accused of the negative portrayal of muslims as terrorists? I wonder what would happen if this movie had been made today instead.
shareThey attacked True Lies for being sexist and racist. They still do.
I think people are taking True Lies a little too personally. And until they hear Cameron say that he meant to make fun of Muslims as terrorists in True Lies, I think they're taking a very extreme view.
I think that the claims of misogyny are groundless, but I can't fault someone of Muslim faith or Arab descent for complaining about the film's depictions. Intentional or not, some of them were pretty harsh. On the villainous side, you had a sanctimonious stooge and his imbecilic army spouting anti-American sentiments and acting as fodder for the hero. On the heroic side, you had a comical loser who thought he was being cool when he compared computer hacking to finger****ing a woman.
I don't know what Cameron's views on Islam are, but I'm fairly certain that "Fast Faisil" was included specifically to show that the film did not intend to portray any sort of anti-Arab sentiments. It's just that he did about as good of a job at counterbalancing the negative imagery as a brick would have against a boulder.
That's your opinion.
I love Aziz and his henchmen as villains.
Did anyone actually mention where all of those terrorists were from, even in the briefing?
What kind of terrorists do you want portrayed in the film?
Oh, it didn't offend me personally. I'm just saying that I can understand how some individuals could take offense. When it comes to middle eastern representation, you have dozens of Islamic fascists and only a nerdly computer hacker to act as a disclaimer and say "Hey, we're not all like that."
I think that if I were a producer on that film, I would have encouraged a scene with an individual to act as a disclaimer. Maybe during the briefing scene or something, have an Arab Muslim do the briefing on Aziz and make a statement about how he's detrimental to whomever he may misrepresent. And I don't mean a comical character like Faisil. I mean a more serious character, a suit and tie. Just a thirty second scene would have been enough.
That way, people go to complain, "Hey, we said 42 minutes into the film that Aziz and his ilk represented terrorists; not Muslims, not Arabs, not the Middle East as a whole." There would still be complaints, as there always are with ethnic villains, but there would still be a point of reference to show that the misresentation of an entire people or an entire faith was not the intent of the producers.
But, that's why Faisil is a good guy. He's a Muslim, but he's no terrorist.
shareNo specific country is mentioned but their list of demands specifically called for a withdrawal of US troops from the Persian Gulf.
"I mean, really, how many times will you look under Jabba's manboobs?"
It's funny you should say that. All the terrorists were speaking the Egyptian dialect of Arabic, but I don't think they ever specifically said where they were from. I feel like they referenced Persia many times as well as some other countries in the middle east but never Egypt. Side note: Ayman Al-Zawahiri, a former top al-Qaeda operative associated with 9/11 was Egyptian. I feel for muslim community for being shown in this way, but at the end of the day, one cannot deny the fact that muslim extremists have been the face of terrorism for awhile now. It's up to the rest of the world to know that not all muslims are like that and I do like the fact that one of the lead supporting good guys was "middle eastern" (although he's actually Jewish in real life).
shareThink its a group that is a lot like Al-Queda or ISIS; they come from all over. Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, even parts of Eastern Europe.
shareIt's funny how it was fine to portray Muslims as terrorists attacking Americans (in America) BEFORE it actually happened. Now that it's happened, it's "wrong" to do it in movies. Sounds a little backwards, no?
I'm glad '24' at least had the balls to have Muslims as terrorists as often as they did, even if a "rich white guy" was usually behind the whole thing (except for season 4).
But, that's why Faisil is a good guy. He's a Muslim, but he's no terrorist.
It's funny how it was fine to portray Muslims as terrorists attacking Americans (in America) BEFORE it actually happened. Now that it's happened, it's "wrong" to do it in movies. Sounds a little backwards, no?
It didn't need some random extra to pop in, say a line just to make True Lies more PC. People don't have to watch the film if they don't want to. Jesus. Everyone has to try and change everything in this world until no one can do anything out of sorts. We all have to act like Stepford Wives or something. lol.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
You nailed it !
Totally agree with you.
(It's funny how it was fine to portray Muslims as terrorists attacking Americans (in America) BEFORE it actually happened. Now that it's happened, it's "wrong" to do it in movies. Sounds a little backwards, no?)
No, actually it is not. They never seem to portray Americans as meddling in foreign countries interests in order to gain something for themselves, like a US backed stooge in government. That would be representative of foreign policy would it not? Just concentrate on the bad that others do and forget your own crimes.
(I agree Luke, there's too much poltical correctness today. You can't do anything without people bitching about it)
I don't think it comes under the banner of pc gone mad, does birth of a nation? the chinese character in Breakfast at Tiffany's is that also pc gone mad?
Lets pretend for a minute YOU are the ethnic minority, in a majority of whites where they control the media and say how bad ALL your people are, and there are usually no one to counter balance these statements. Is that PC or the truth?
LOL. Jesus. You use Mickey Rooney's horrible, over-the-top, comedic Chinese performance in Breakfast at Tiffany's as your defense? That's all you've got?
Then, Cameron was insulting Mexican people by casting a white Jewish woman to play Vasquez in Aliens.
In fact, almost every Western film before Sergio Leone is insulting to every Native American. Because they used white people to portray the Native Americans, instead of actual Native Americans.
RIGHT??
Well, here's the rub. Aziz is played by an actual Muslim. He's not actually out of character. So... what is exactly wrong with the image of Muslim or Islamic terrorists Cameron portrays in True Lies? If you understood anything about Al Quaeda or its leaders, you'd understand that the organization is full of every nationality in the Middle East. They all happen to be Muslims. Does that mean all Muslims are bad? NO! Anyone with half a brain and some common sense should be able to understand that being Muslim, doesn't automatically make you a terrorist. SOOO... I'm still really lost as to why you people are having such a conniption fit over this MOVIE. You're all acting like Al Quaeda doesn't exist.
Once again, Luke misses the point of the argument. The point is not that Mickey Rooney played a Chinese man but that he portrayed him offensively. That the character itself was offensively racist. If a Chinese actor played that role in the same manner, it would still be offensive. That was the point.
Plus, Art Malik is not a practicing Muslim. His parents were. He was raised in the faith. But he does not practice. But you assumed he did. Why is that? Is it that he looks like a Muslim? The olive skin? Is that why? No, your assumption could not have come from his ethnicity. I'm being silly.
[deleted]
Oh my God!!! Cry my some rivers... who cares if a movie is not PC? I loved True Lies and tough shat if it offends some "groups". Hey, guess what... don't like that depiction - take it to your group and tell THEM to change. Good lord I am so sick of over-sensitivity anymore.
"Loser! Idiot! Wimp! Degnerate! SSSSSSSSSLUT!!!!"
Um, I have not seen this film in years, but when I saw it I remember thinking of it as satire. In other words, the Islamic "terrorists" were over-the-top and absurd because the movie was sort of spoofing Hollywood action movies that take themselves seriously. I thought the movie was very tongue-in-cheek and that it was clear that none of the characters were supposed to be taken at face value.
shareBravo Trevio, bravo!
"Jury Duty is my fave movie"
(It's funny how it was fine to portray Muslims as terrorists attacking Americans (in America) BEFORE it actually happened. Now that it's happened, it's "wrong" to do it in movies. Sounds a little backwards, no?)
No, actually it is not. They never seem to portray Americans as meddling in foreign countries interests in order to gain something for themselves, like a US backed stooge in government. That would be representative of foreign policy would it not? Just concentrate on the bad that others do and forget your own crimes.
(I agree Luke, there's too much poltical correctness today. You can't do anything without people bitching about it)
I don't think it comes under the banner of pc gone mad, does birth of a nation? the chinese character in Breakfast at Tiffany's is that also pc gone mad?
Lets pretend for a minute YOU are the ethnic minority, in a majority of whites where they control the media and say how bad ALL your people are, and there are usually no one to counter balance these statements. Is that PC or the truth?
"How sad is it that some people force themselves to ignore reality and replace it with a fantasy that not only is inaccurate, but a gross contradiction that's 100% the opposite of the truth."
You just described the Republican Party, right there.
@tabdenver2 They never seem to portray Americans as meddling in foreign countries interests in order to gain something for themselves...
You obviously weren't paying attention to Salim Abu Aziz's speech about the Persian Gulf.
Anyways, why do you expect America (or any country) to criticize itself? Let other countries make movies about how America's foreign policy sucks.
[deleted]
[deleted]
How fúçkïng stupid are you? This film was made in late 1993 or early 1994 after Islamics bombed the World Trade Center on February 26th 1993 and killed six people and wounded over a thousand others.
DeAd_MiKe_187 wrote:share
It's funny how it was fine to portray Muslims as terrorists attacking Americans (in America) BEFORE it actually happened. Now that it's happened, it's "wrong" to do it in movies. Sounds a little backwards, no?
So, you're saying the script was written, and the film was done filming, after the WTC bombing of Feb 26th 1993, for a film released July 16th, 1994? Interesting.
shareI'm just curious if this pre-9/11 film got accused of the negative portrayal of muslims as terrorists?
Look at movies like The Last Kiss Goodknight (which was pre 9/11) which had some government organization framing some poor muslim guy. YOu see it real life too. The Fort Hood shooting wasn't a 'workplace' indicident.
It's one of the reasons movies aren't as good anymore. They are too afraid to offend certain people.
Hello....this movie was tongue-in-cheek.
Everything about it was a spoof. The high speed "horse chase" scene...the ripped "Ahnold" with a flame-thrower...the spies infiltrating a Swiss chalet...the over-the-top terrorists...the "hot" wife just waiting to come out. It was all A JOKE. The whole movie was a goof. It was silly people! Anyone who is offended by this does not get the joke! It was satire making fun of Hollywood action movies; it was just done in a low-key way.
I mean, come on, Tom Arnold is a top CIA agent (omega sector, excuse me)???
People who are offended by the way Muslims are portrayed by Hollywood should absolutely LOVE this movie. I do not get the hate at all.
What scares me is that it is obvious a lot of people did not get that this movie was supposed to be satirical.
@howtragic Anyone who is offended by this does not get the joke!
Muslims aren't exactly renowned for their sense of humor.
It's one of the reasons movies aren't as good anymore. They are too afraid to offend certain people.
I specified "in America." You just said "in Lebanon."
share
I dont' think it would get the greenlight from the Major Motion Picture Industry today if someone had the balls to write this up and put Islamic/Muslim terrorists as the forefront of the terrorist activity.
are you going to bark all day little doggie,, or are you going to bite
Islamic extremists would have threatened to murder the director and writers and anyone else associated with the film. It's a shame that the film industry backs down to these bullies.
That was all rather thrilling. Anything more cinematographic could scarcely be imagined.
Even this movie was a bit PC, saying the Crimson Jihad was a splinter group that was extreme even for a Muslim terrorist group.
And the movie is played for more comical effect. Hell, just look at how Aziz meets his end. He gets nailed in the balls by the tail of the Harrier, falls onto the missile, and gets fired into his comrades in the helicopter? This is a MOVIE, not a documentary. And made back in the day when movies didn't have to be dark and brooding to be successful.
---
"If that woman packed her bags & left me I don't know what I'd do...first."---Norm, "Cheers"
Hollywood will not portray a minority in a negative light anymore. Even Star TRek changed Kahn's ethnicity to portray him as a white guy to suit this new politically correct model. White gentiles are in the cross hairs due to it not being politically correct to have an anti defamation league to defend against negative portrayals .
shareThey should have kept it. Genghis Khan was a crazy son of a bitch.
shareMuslims usually are terrorists though. If not through their actual actions then through their inaction to speak out against atrocities committed by the same people who share their faith. It all equates to the same thing. Mind you, same thing could said about Christians. A strange world we live in.
*beep* Thracians - Crixus
*beep* Gauls - Agron
Let's not forget that over 90% of all terrorist deaths are caused by muslim terrorism.
shareYour statement that "Muslims usually are terrorists though" is false. Of the 1.7 billion Muslims, a very, very small percentage are involved in what could be described as terrorist activity. As for not speaking out about the atrocities committed in the name of Islam, this too is false. It just doesn't get reported. Do a Google Search on the subject, and you'll have the proof.
share