0
   

The ethics of casting terrorists in movies and series.

 
 
Reply Sun 6 Aug, 2006 02:46 pm
I remember the movie 'The Peacemaker' with Clooney and Kidman, in which Kidman I believe says that great line: "I don't worry about the guy who steals ten nuclear missiles. I worry about the guy who only needs one." (I quote from hazy memory, and probably not ad verbatim, sorry for that) I had fun watching it, not in the least because I feel both Clooney and Kidman are great actors, but that is not the issue.
Without giving any plot information, the movie deals with a terrorist who plans an attack. This one, and other movies and series who cast terrorists as the main antagonists, got me thinking.

Is it ok for moviemakers to do this, knowing the growing paranoia in the modern west about terrorism? Doesn't this breed fear? And doesn't enough fear lead to hate? I'm of two minds myself. On the one side, there is the freedom of speech. Besides, movies have been made which dealt with all sorts of tender, difficult issues, such as homosexual relationships, racism, the KKK, World War II etc. On the other hand, there is this growing sense of dread for everything islamic and/or Middle Eastern.

What are your thoughts on this issue? Do you guys know of any studies on this subject matter?

Naj.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 774 • Replies: 3
No top replies

 
detano inipo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Aug, 2006 04:14 pm
Most war movies are propaganda. The hero is either a terrorist who does good work against the devil, or he is the sleuth who finds the bad guy and eliminates him.
.
If Hitler, Stalin, Osama or Saddam had been killed by a man wearing a white hat, the world would have been better off. When a criminal plans a heinous crime; why not stop him with a bullet before he can set the fuse?
.
Terrorists are smoothies, not ugly, smelly monsters. In the little Drummer Girl, Samy Frey is quite sympatico.
.
My favourite Spy is Sam Neill as: 'Reilly Ace of Spies.'
.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B04E6D91E38F93AA25752C0A962948260
.........................................
The Little Drummer Girl (1984)
.
A Palestinian bomber has killed an Israeli diplomat and his family and the Israeli plot to neutralise him becomes convoluted as they select an American Actress (Charlie, Diane Keaton) to impersonate the Bomber's brother's girlfriend after the Israeli's capture and kill the brother. Charlie is placed into a world where she begins being an actress, then becomes a spy, then is trained by the Palestinians as a guerrilla and finally is sent to deliver a bomb. She is chronically confused by how far she is really supposed to go in her impersonations and how much of herself she must give up.
From the book by John Le Carre.
.
http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0087629/plotsummary
0 Replies
 
najmelliw
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Aug, 2006 05:33 pm
detano inipo wrote:
Most war movies are propaganda. The hero is either a terrorist who does good work against the devil, or he is the sleuth who finds the bad guy and eliminates him.


I'd say you mean 'resistance fighter' rather than terrorist, given that a terrorist uses atrocities to communicate a message he believes in. No hero commits atrocities, since there can be no sympathy for such a character.

detano inipo wrote:

If Hitler, Stalin, Osama or Saddam had been killed by a man wearing a white hat, the world would have been better off. When a criminal plans a heinous crime; why not stop him with a bullet before he can set the fuse?


While I find the premise appealing, it is of course more tricky then this. Let's look at the three people mentioned seperately.
1. Hitler eliminated would not necessarily mean that World War II would not happen. Germany was crushed under the depression, there was a great bitterness induced by the false propaganda delivered by the millitary at the end of WW I, which led to the mistaken belief that the country had been 'stabbed in the back' by the jews which had lost the war they were otherwise winning. Anyone able to cash in on that resentment could have risen to greatness.
But let's say he did start the war all by himself. Eliminating him, then would prevent the war. It would, however, also prevent the United Nations for example. Also, I'd say much of the anti-racism movement has gained it's momentum by this war. Not just that, but new technologies and inventions made during the war are for a good part at the root of current modern day devices (For instance, computers).
2. Stalin eliminated might well have resulted in Hitler winning WW II. The Russian war effort is not to be underestimated. Surely, he was paranoid, and ruthless, causing the deaths of millions of Russians, but the disastrous campaign in Russian was IMHO one of the most vital turning points in WWII for Hitler. Besides, fear of Russia and it's leader played a huge part in the creation of the network of political alliances that has endured for quite a long time (The NATO for example). Part of the reason for the Marshall help provided to Western Europe by the US of A had to do with staving of this threat...
3. Osama? I'm not sure how vital this man is. Would eliminating him prevent 9/11 ? I don't know enough of the power structures of such groups to give a well grounded answer, but my strong suspicion is that it is not. They need to be fluid and flexible, since the members are usually hunted and leaders are especially wanted, so 'free' positions would in all probability be quickly replaced.

detano inipo wrote:

Terrorists are smoothies, not ugly, smelly monsters. In the little Drummer Girl, Samy Frey is quite sympatico.
.
My favourite Spy is Sam Neill as: 'Reilly Ace of Spies.'
.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B04E6D91E38F93AA25752C0A962948260
.........................................
The Little Drummer Girl (1984)
.
A Palestinian bomber has killed an Israeli diplomat and his family and the Israeli plot to neutralise him becomes convoluted as they select an American Actress (Charlie, Diane Keaton) to impersonate the Bomber's brother's girlfriend after the Israeli's capture and kill the brother. Charlie is placed into a world where she begins being an actress, then becomes a spy, then is trained by the Palestinians as a guerrilla and finally is sent to deliver a bomb. She is chronically confused by how far she is really supposed to go in her impersonations and how much of herself she must give up.
From the book by John Le Carre.
.
http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0087629/plotsummary


Sounds good, especially that part of the little Drummer Girl. But how do you feel about this? Is it OK to simply use terrorists in movies, or should the movie industry try to be more understanding of the undercurrents in society, by respecting them rather then by profiting from them?
0 Replies
 
detano inipo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Aug, 2006 06:04 pm
Movies or books about war or terrorists should always show the dirty play on both sides. There is nothing noble in the murky intelligence game.
.
Naive people who chant about glory and heroism should be shown that violence is mostly ugly and causes much suffering.
.
If Hitler would have died in 1933, the war would have never started. Stalin killed more of his own people than Hitler did. Osama had the money and intelligence to make that elaborate plan for 9/11. His early death might have stopped the actual crime.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The ethics of casting terrorists in movies and series.
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 05/02/2024 at 05:07:41