Blasphemy of the prophet Mohammed, or stupid propaganda?

INNOCENCE OF MUSLIMS: Irresponsible filmmaking?

By Jerry Saravia

Nakoula Basseley Nakoula in hiding over the controversial "Innocence of Muslims"

Where does a filmmaker's responsibility lie? When a film is released and causes an uproar and violent protests, how much responsibility should a filmmaker claim to the work itself? These are questions one could ask about the highly controversial "The Innocence of Muslims," an anti-Islam film that has been used as a bludgeoning political tool against all Muslims, perhaps specifically Muslim/Islamic extremists. The unfortunate 9/11/12 Benghazi bombing at a consulate that left 12 dead, including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, has left ripples on both American political party lines and a lot of justified anger from Muslims. The film "Innocence of Muslims" has been blamed for the incident and worldwide protests have sparked furor across the Middle East and Europe, Australia and Canada. But is it really the film's fault or is the film being used as an excuse? Supposedly, al-Qaeda claimed responsibility for the embassy attack in response to the U.S. drone strike which killed Libyan Abu Yahya al-Libi, an al-Qaeda leader.

"Innocence of Muslims" began under the title "Desert Warriors" and had to do with a certain Master George. The producer/filmmaker is Sam Bacile, real name is Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, who did not tell the actors that the film had to do with the Prophet Mohammed. He also told the film crew he was an Israeli real estate mogul when in fact he is an Egyptian and a Coptic Christian (and has a criminal background that includes bank fraud charges). Nakoula somehow obtained 5 millions dollars to make the film, using his home as a location for shooting. The film's trailer premiered on Youtube in July, 2012 and didn't cause a stir at all. Only after 9/11/12, and with the newly revised trailer that was translated in Arabic, did an uproar initiate. Clearly, from having viewed the trailer, the film is overdubbed with lines of dialogue referring to Mohammed and a donkey as the "first Muslim animal" and much more. Mohammed is depicted with no undergarments, resting his head in a woman's netheregions and, well, you get the idea.

I can safely say from what I viewed that this film is a laughable travesty. It is obviously green-screened to death, is acted with the restraint of a 3rd grade school production, laughably and badly dubbed (you can clearly hear where the offending lines of dialogue are inserted) and shoddily made. I would hope that this garbage would not be taken seriously at all but any depiction of Mohammed is seen as an affront to Islam (the late Moustapha Akkad's film "Mohammed, Messenger of God" wen through great care to never show the Prophet, which is expected no matter how reverential the depiction). So should anybody care? I say no, but I am not the filmmaker who clearly made a film to offend, not provoke. That may be the difference in hindsight. When Martin Scorsese faced scorn and controversy with "The Last Temptation of Christ," he intended to make a spiritual film that was meant to question our own faith in the son of God - he made the film to provoke discussion, not to incite hatred and violent protests. Granted, "Last Temptation" had enormous protests outside movie theaters because it did not treat Jesus with reverence - it examined him as a fallible human being who had sex with Mary Magdalene (the latter being a temptation on the cross). In other words, not so divine. But there was no war, in the literal sense, that used the film to add fuel to the fire.

This is not the first time that a film caused Muslims to protest. The most extreme example may be Theo van Gogh, the director of a 2004 11-minute short film called "Submission,"the broadcast of the film which led to the assassination of the director by a Dutch-Moroccan Muslim fundamentalist. The film itself deals with Muslim women who have been abused by men, instructed by way of Koranic interpretations. After van Gogh's death, there were fire-bombings of mosques and Muslim schools. Of course, if van Gogh had not made the film, he might still be alive. But he did make the film and it cost him his life for revealing the misogyny against Muslim women. Another controversial film was 2008's "Fitna," which depicts Mohammed with a bomb strapped on his head and, for literary comparisons, there is Salman Rushdie's "Satanic Verses" (considered blasphemous by Muslims). "Satanic Verses" also caused controversy and some killings and attacks on various book publishers (as a result of an imposed fatwa that still stands to this day by the late Ayatollah Khomeini) forcing the author to be in hiding and under police protection for nine years. Mr. Rushdie has also gone on record to decry the trailer itself as "outrageous and unpleasant and disgusting."

With trouble and civil unrest brewing in the Middle East (not to mention a recent French magazine printing drawings of a naked Mohammed), maybe a film like "Innocence of Muslims" is not the right move. It had one screening in L.A. (under the title "Innocence of Bin Laden") and the protests seems to have largely been initiated by a Youtube trailer dubbed in Arabic, not the screening of the film itself (allegedly only ten people were in attendance). But if it caused no protest before, why did it cause protest after the embassy bombing? Are the filmmakers responsible for the violence, or should we not be blaming the bombers themselves? Why is a stupid film of this nature the brunt of all recent upheaval, and not the French magazine? And where does a filmmaker's responsibility lie when an actress named Cindy Lee Garcia, who worked on the film, has been receiving death threats and is currently suing the producer?

The message seems to be: ridicule or provocation induced by criticism of any Muslim teachings and the prophet Muhammad are not to be tolerated and can result in, gulp, death and destruction. Chilling thought.