New Muhammad biopic drives the anti-Hollywood crowd nuts

England's the Guardian is reporting that Barrie Osborne, one of the producers of "The Lord of the Rings" and "The Matrix," is hoping to mount a biopic of the prophet Muhammad. Osborne says the film, which is being financed by a Qatar-based company, would feature English-speaking Muslim actors, although in keeping with Islamic law, it wouldn't actually depict the prophet on screen (which has got to be bad news for Tony Shalhoub, who'd normally be a shoo-in for the part). Osborne hopes the story of Muhammad would "educate people about the true meaning of Islam."  

It all sounds perfectly respectful to me. But as usual, the news has aroused a storm of derision from conservative bloggers, who always find a way to be offended by any high-minded Hollywood project. Even though the film apparently hasn't been cast and isn't due to begin filming until 2011, Big Hollywood's John Nolte was in high dudgeon this morning, instantly drawing comparisons between the Muhammad project and Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ," which Nolte complains was "turned down by every studio in town. You know, even though 70% of Americans identify themselves as Christians."

Nolte conveniently forgets that the prime reason why Hollywood studios kept their distance from "Passion of the Christ" was because the film was viewed by many as offering an anti-Semitic portrayal of Jews, not because anyone had a lack of regard for Christians. Also worth noting: Osborne is a prominent indie producer, meaning he doesn't have the promise of any studio backing for his project. So it's likely -- if the movie is ever made -- that he would have just as hard a time as Gibson in getting any studio backing for the Muhammad film

But according to Nolte, the possibility that an indie producer might make a respectful film about Muhammad is yet another sign of Hollywood's contempt for Christianity. Or as he puts it:

"[It's] another example of the mindset of those who control the most powerful propaganda machine ever created. Think about it: 'The Passion' remains one of the most profitable films ever and yet an industry frequently ridiculed for reproducing ad nauseum [sic] anything resembling a hit will have none of it....Please don't make the mistake of accusing Hollywood of hypocrisy. This is an ideological war and there are no rules in war and anyone wringing their hands over 'not playing fair' are missing the point. When you loath [sic] Christians and want to do everything in your power to marginalize who they are and what they stand for, there's nothing at all hypocritical about pissing on Christ and deferring to Muhammad."

I admire Nolte's passion, but I can't say that he's made much of a case. I mean, just because Hollywood shied away from promoting "Passion of the Christ" doesn't necessarily mean that we're in the midst of an "ideological war" against Christianity. In fact, I'd be happy to get Nolte invited to an advance screening of "The Blind Side," a wonderful new film by John Lee Hancock that Warner Bros. is releasing later this month. It tells the real-life story of a wealthy Memphis woman -- played by Sandra Bullock -- whose family takes in a homeless African American boy, feeds him, clothes him and helps him make it through school. He turns out to be a phenomenally successful football player who's now playing in the NFL.

The family are devoted Christians (and die-hard Republicans too, John), yet they are portrayed with the utmost warmth and respect for their selflessness and commitment to sharing their good fortune with others. If this is another example of Hollywood's ideological war against Christianity, then maybe someone should remind both sides what they are fighting about.

Photo: Barrie Osborne. Credit: John McDermott / For the Los Angeles Times.

Comments

[John]

Even if Islamic law permitted an on-screen portrayal of Mohammad, they wouldn't let Tony Shalhoub play the part- like most Americans of Lebanese ancestry, he is a Christian....

[greg]

What?! The movie industry is governed by sharia law? Why not show the actor? HE WAS A MAN! There is so little respect shown for religion in movies, why is islam special? Oh right, you're cowards.

[Abu Hamzeh]

Greg-

You can call the shots the day you decide to finance the movie. Until then, we'll let the Muslim sponsors to decide.

On a side note, I wonder if they will include historical events such as Ghadeer and Da'wat al-Zul2asheereh.

[RealisticExpectations]

Heaven forfend we should be respectful of their beliefs, Greg.

We'd expect nothing less from Moslems if they were to make a similar film about Jesus of Nazareth.

You teach by example, Greg. As we were taught all those years ago, we turn the other cheek.

[kevmo]

Urine on a crucifix in a jar is not offensive it's art. Portraying Jesus as fantasizing about an adulterous relationship with one of his female disciples, while hanging from the cross is not offensive it's art. Productions suggesting that Jesus was homosexual is not offensive, it's art. Elaborate schemes about medieval secret societies protecting the descendants of Jesus (who lived as a celibate) is not offensive, it's art. So, showing Muhammad's face is what...? Who's kidding who? Producers of arts and media in the west are only brave when they're offending Christians. So much as draw a cartoon of Muhammad and they'll find themselves bleeding in street with a notes pinned to they're chests with a daggers. Western arts and media, Hollywood specifically, IS nothing but a bunch of cowards! Paaawk, Paaawk!

[kevmo]

A crucifix submerged in a jar of urine is not offensive, it's art; portraying Jesus hallucinating of an adulterous tryst with Mary Magdalene while being crucified is not offensive, it's art; productions portraying Jesus as homosexual is not offensive, it's art; elaborate schemes and conspiracies of medieval secret societies concealing the descendants of Jesus (a celibate) is not offensive, it's art. And you can't show Muhammad's what? Who's kidding who? It's not about "not" wanting to offend someone's religious beliefs. So much as draw a cartoon of Muhammad and you'll find yourself bleeding to death in the street with a note pinned to your chest with a dagger, or write a book that actually isn't disrespectful to Islam, but nonetheless find yourself exiled and confined to your London apartment because an Ayatollah has declared you an enemy of Islam worthy of death. The arts and media in the west are entirely hypocritical cowards. They're only brave when offending non-threatening faiths.

[bohanon]

conservatives whine about things they dont understand...
like consideration,selfless conduct,beliefs not their own,
people who aren't scared of change,etc.
thats why they are so easy to ignore

[No Dhimmi]

So, the religion of VIOLENCE has managed to intimidate - or buy off - these guys in order to show a "respectful" film about a man who married a 6-year-old girl and then began having sex with her when she was 9 years old. They will undoubtedly not mention that little factoid. Nor will they display MuhamMAD in all his gory, personally slaughtering hundreds of people, including many Jews. No doubt this "respectful" (terrorist-accommodating) film will also avoid showing all of Muhammad's SLAVES, including the many women he kept in order to rape.

Not to mention that this hideous man inspired millions of people to invade, rape, pillage and slaughter in numerous countries, with this atrocity continuing to this day. Ever heard of the Muslim conquest of India?

I'm surprised that the producers of "The Lord of the Rings" can't see that a Muhammad bio in keeping with the facts would resemble THAT drama more than anything else, with hordes of Orcs descending down upon humanity at the command of the desert warrior fanatic.

Yet more disservice to the 270 million people murdered in the name of Allah, Mohammed and the Koran. This film will undoubtedly be little more than Islamist propaganda.

A huge amount of the world's problems are being caused by MUSLIMS, and here we go again pandering to them. Pathetic and disgraceful.

[No Dhummi]

Dhimmi - you don't get it do you? The "religion of violence" is the one you worship with your bizarre politics of hatred, smear campaigns and islamophobic hysteria.

You had eight years to make your numbskull point. IT'S OVER IDIOT!!!

[Jimmy Khan]

I am surprised that the moderator let "No Dimmies" comment to be published even though it falls in the category of blasphemy. In any case, the marriage of Prophet (peace be upon him) to Aiesha was inspired by God. She played the most crucial role in helping the documentation of the matters concerning Muslim women. I hope such matters are dealt with in the movie so that everyone, with open mind, would understand... just like they understand how Mary (may God be pleased with her), the one who has the highest honor of any woman in Islam, bore Jesus while no man had touched her.