I have written frequently on here about the curious silence of my Hollywood colleagues about the assassination (for his art) of their fellow filmmaker Theo Van Gogh by an Islamist psychokiller. I’m not sure if it’s willful ignorance or just plain ignorance, but the crime has been persistently ignored by the film community, as if it never happened. No mention is made in today’s Variety either of the trial of the murderer Mohammed Bouyeri who, this morning in Amsterdam, was sentenced to life without parole. Perhaps I am being hasty and something will appear tomorrow, but I doubt it. The only trial Variety seems to be paying attention to is Roman Polanksi vs. Vanity Fair, which has far more prurient value but zero social significance and, more importantly, almost no relevance to the art of film and to artistic freedom compared to the decapitation of Van Gogh.
Of course it’s not surprising Hollywood is confused. Social relevance has almost always been associated with the left. But now the game has changed. It’s very hard for people in their lives to make even a small shift, particularly those who have been so rewarded, financially and narcissistically, for their views. So don’t expect much in the way of cinema that relates to global reality, especially from the mainstream.
As for the Van Gogh sentencing, PeakTalk has moving comments about the murdered filmmaker. Pieter Dorsman, fluent in Dutch, has done a vastly better job than Variety covering the trial by himself at his Vancouver blog. (via Glenn)
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
20 Comments
1. Eric Akawie:Have you tried writing an article or special report for Variety or THR? Hell, for that matter, maybe you, Ben Stein, Pat Sajak and the other two or three Hwood no-longer or never-were leftists could buy a full-page ad and publish the article yourselves.
I think the case just isn’t well known outside the right-hand blogosphere (and the Netherlands.)
Here’s another idea: Buy Pim Fortyn a star on the Walk of Fame. It might be enough of a curiosity to get some publicity.
Jul 26, 2005 - 7:06 am 2. richard mcenroe:Don’t worry, Spielberg will get right on this just as soon as he finishes drumming up sympathy for the butchers of Munich…
Jul 26, 2005 - 7:37 am 3. PJ:When their dogma (the superiority of the Other) collides with reality (murder by the Other) they are paralyzed, morally and politically.
I note CBS Sunday Morning has added Ben Stein as a commentator. I would like to think my angry emails about their political propaganda…er, news, did some good. It’s a great show about the arts but they should drop their “news” segment.
Jul 26, 2005 - 7:52 am 4. Das:Roger thank you for keeping this alive in your blog. Hollywood’s silence about VanGogh is beyond strange – it’s eerie. Did anyone see that video documentary about 9/11 survivors released only a couple months after? It tracked the lives of a few Long Island families – one family was Mulsim I recall – as they came to the realization that their loved ones weren’t coming back. Incredibly moving.
Jul 26, 2005 - 8:27 am 5. Orson2:I once lived in Amsterdam and almost married a Dutchwoman – and thus have more than passing interest in this trial, Theo Van Gogh, and Pim Fortuyn. I’m also currently writing a book on film history.
Roger, how does one penetrate the mind of Hollywood? Take out an ad in Variety? Do they print letters? Or must one simply circulate in the right places?
Their selective outrage and neglect of real threats simply boggles the mind. Is there no strategy to waking the sleeping-dead?
Jul 26, 2005 - 9:01 am 6. TedM:Van Gogh is like Rushdie. Something the “intellectual” left chooses to ignore.
To pay attention is to have to deal with the religious implication.
A man is condemned to death by murder for writing a book which a religious leader doesn’t like. Where is the outrage????
A man is murdered for a movie he makes which is critical of a religion .. Where is the outrage???
A man is killed in LOndon who may be an innocent victim. And the airwaves are filled with coverage.
A suspect accusation of koran flushing is made and the news outlets are overflowing with self denigration.
Ask you friends about Van Gogh and Rushdie. Chances are they won’t even know what you are talking about.
A sad indictment of Hollywood, the press and the media. And the American people too.
Jul 26, 2005 - 9:15 am 7. byrd:I’m curious as to what Eric Akawie’s point is.
It’s Roger’s fault Hollywood doesn’t care about Van Gogh’s murder because he writes about it on his blog instead of on the pages of Varuety?
That it’s the right’s responsibility to teach the left what to care about and, if the left persists in it’s inane navel gazing, it’s the right’s fault for not making the case strongly enough?
His “idea” is especially confusing when read with the apparent attitude of the opening paragraph in mind.
It would be helpful if Eric would say whether or not he cares about Van Gogh’s murder because one can’t tell from his post.
Jul 26, 2005 - 9:15 am 8. photoncourier.blogspot.com:I didn’t read Eric’s comment as “blaming” Roger, only as suggesting additional means to publicize this issue.
I think we all need to be thinking about ways to expand blogosphere knowledge and influence beyond the still relatively-small blogosphere per se.
Jul 26, 2005 - 9:36 am 9. Kevin P:Roger:
There was much more attention to Rushdie at the time of the fatwah. 60 minutes did a long segment. There were many op-ed’s and many long talks on the chat shows. There was a concerted effort by publishers and writers to bring the crime to the public’s awareness. I have a theory on why it was done for Rushdie and not for Van Gogh.
At the time of Rushdie there was not going be any other requirement on people to do anything other then to express outrage. It is easy to join in group protest when all you have to do is hold placards at a meeting and agree with speakers who are talking about how bad the act is. Moral outrage that doesn’t require concrete actions is easy. It allows one to feel self rightous and part of the smart set to intellectually agree that the action against Rushdie is uncivilized and contemptable.
Why is Van Gogh different? Because there is a war going on against the source of the problem. Because instead of just talking at cocktail parties and stroking each other about how much smarter one is then the heathens that would think such thoughts, there is a action that is combating the source and trying to eliminate it it and they are doing it in a way that the left finds repulsive. They believe so firmly in the multi-culti dogma and the Van Gogh murder makes a mockery of their dogma and if they give it attention they will be forced to change their minds and take action.
It is very hard for those on the left to recognize that the Islamo fascist culture can’t excist side by side in a modern western world. It is hard for the left to face the hard truth that concrete actions will be required to end this problem. Rallies and discusion will not be enough. The Islamo Fascist’s need to be eliminated, not studied and understood.
This is why they ignore Van Gogh. If they took up the subject so many of their core beliefs would be shone to be absurd and useless so they just skip the subject. Taking up the issue of the Van Gogh murder forces them to do something. The only actions that they can stomach will do nothing to solve the problem. They don’t want their idea’s ridiculed so they avoid the argument.
Kevin Peters
Jul 26, 2005 - 11:35 am 10. Kyda Sylvester:Maybe Hollywood is just plain gutless.
Not much of a reward for “damages”, eh, Roman? I guess when it comes to some reputations “damage” is a relative term.
Jul 26, 2005 - 12:05 pm 11. TedM:Kevin,
good post.
For a while I was ending most emails with the sentence “REMEMBER RUSHDIE”
I think I will start that again and use “REMEMBER THEO VAN GOGH”
How about it Roger. Maybe that can be our small contribution here. All of the regulars and visitors start inserting that into every email they send.
And if you havent signed up at http://www.unite-against-terror.com/ please do so now.
Jul 26, 2005 - 12:47 pm 12. slim:Rog,
Hate to break it to you buddy, but your pals in Hollywood have no clue even who Theo Van Gogh is.
And they don’t want to know.
(I doubt many of them know who Vincent Van Gogh is.)
However, when the Islamofascists begin beheading homosexuals just for being homosexuals (as in Iran the other day), then and only then, will you see Hollywood wake up and join the GWOT.
Until then … well, let’s just say that Jihad make strange bedfellows.
Jul 26, 2005 - 2:26 pm 13. richard mcenroe:I’ve seen people start funds to buy ads in the trades for cancelled TV shows for crying out loud. Maybe a PayPal button for Theo van Gogh isn’t a bad idea… “America Asks Hollywood…”
Jul 26, 2005 - 4:38 pm 14. Kyda Sylvester:Not a bad idea, Richard. What does an ad in Variety cost?
Jul 26, 2005 - 6:09 pm 15. Eric Akawie:Photoncourier has my attitude pegged. I meant no accusation or disrespect, simply throwing a couple of ideas in front of Roger, and the rest of the blogosphere.
I do care about Van Gogh’s murder and would like for the case to be better known.
Jul 26, 2005 - 7:26 pm 16. richard mcenroe:Kyda รณ What the hell. I’ll check when I get home from this weekend.
Jul 26, 2005 - 7:52 pm 17. TedM:Totally off topic. eric, you have an unusual last name. did you have relatives in New Jersey?
Jul 26, 2005 - 7:53 pm 18. Eric Akawie:Yes Ted, I do. I’m from NJ, and there was another family of Akawies also living there, who were cousins who we discovered when I was a teenager.
You can go to my blog http://www.flig.us and scroll down for an interesting revelation I had about my name a few months ago.
Jul 27, 2005 - 4:59 am 19. byrd:Eric,
Sorry for jumping to conclusions. I must be getting a little too jaded.
I thought your first paragraph was sarcastic and in bad faith. I knew the final sentence of your post didn’t fit with that interpretation but instead of just being confused and dropping it, I decided you were confused and I had to say something. A mistake I occasionally make.
Sorry you were at the receiving end.
Jul 27, 2005 - 7:47 am 20. Fred Benson:Entertainment Tonight, Access Hollywood, Extra and The Insider ignored Theo’s story as well. Would Mark Steines report on Mary Hart being killed by Islamists, since he had Anna Nicole’s last interview?
Apr 27, 2009 - 11:03 amI once saw E!’s Steve Kmetko crying during the 9/11 broadcst of E! News? If E! covered Theo’s murder, Kmetko would’ve created an ocean or just laughed.