Search found 1 match: Mel Gibson

Searched query: mel gibson

by backwardsuit
Tue Apr 30, 2019 5:44 pm
Forum: General Discussion
Topic: Islamic Terrorism in Film
Replies: 18
Views: 15963

Re: Islamic Terrorism in Film

I am no kind of authority on this subject but since I'm drunk I might as well post some thoughts on it (which are entirely based on personal vibes and therefore probably wrong). I apologize beforehand for offending anyone with my ignorance, this is more or less a plea for someone to correct my unfounded ideas and misinformation.

I think that talking about "islamic terrorism" is a bit like talking about "hindu racism" or "christian colonialism" (mix and match as you please). Islam (and religion in general) is such a multi-layered & sometimes fluid subject that it often serves to muddle things in a story, especially if the filmmaker has no real knowledge, experience or even interest regarding it. For reasons mentioned by Mentaculus in his enlightening post, islam in film is often (intentionally or unintentionally) portrayed as a convenient distraction from the idea that terrorism on a coordinated level is primarily political action with a variety of psychological mechanisms behind it. The politics and psychology obviously have connecting tissue in culture and identity, of which religion always partakes in (even if a particular “terrorist” does not entirely identify with it or have “faith”). However it is highly unclear what level of overall relevance religion or religiousness actually plays in terroristic action (which in itself is a contested term) and such relevance would be almost impossible to reasonably establish. This I reckon is due to several different reasons:

Firstly it needs to be mentioned that every organized world religion condemns terrorism on some level in its doctrine. In the case of islam it is important (for “westerners”) to understand that unlike most of christianity, it lacks an overarching religious governance that's (1) separate from political affiliations (at least in theory), (2) recognized across all national/ethnic borders and (3) has a consistent theological & historical continuum. The closest thing would probably be found in Iran but even there, its current entanglement with the political system puts it under constant pressure (even Grand Ayatollahs have been put under house arrest for criticising this entanglement). This lack of unity has been fostered by western colonialism and continues to perpetuate under post-colonial relations. The result is that islam has an abundance of schools of doctrine whose internal and external relations can be very politically charged and under these conditions it can lack the ordinance to deal with extremism in a united and consistent manner. Moreover, it is not simple to define what constitutes as “true” islamic doctrine in a modern context. Certainly the Quran and Hadiths describe the concept of “jihad” in radically different terms as the extremist discourses in both east and west.

Secondly it should be said that for any terrorist organization (especially when it relates to “east vs west” and the history of colonialism), attempting to claim the cloak of religious righteousness is a powerful and essential strategic play that's definitely been both directly and indirectly influenced by the actions of western powers (Rambo III like TychoCelchuu said). However it can also be strategic to simultaneously (and paradoxically) claim the cloak of mostrous depravity. The “religion card” was used by Daesh as a calculated “divide & conquer” effort to increase extremism across borders & manipulate western populations and media thus indirectly targetting western muslims for both violence and recruitment (while outright massacring muslims in their home territory). The media (including the film industry) played right into this. Emphasizing the “religiousness” of their atrocities in this way was a horrifying and effective tactic that turned the capitalist apparatus into an accomplice for its campaign. Therefore it was not so much religion that played a part in this specific terror tactic as it was “depictions of religion” perpetrated and shared by supposedly non-religious (or non-islamic) parties.

Thirdly, regarding the psychology of terrorism, it has been noted in some studies that faith, especially eschatological beliefs can serve as a powerful motivating factor in extreme stress scenarios like warfare (and in this context terrorism could be classified as a type of warfare). However in this sense it is not clear to me if religion is any different from ideology like nationalism or “civil religion” (as described by Robert Bellah). Seems to me that even singular abstract concepts like “freedom” (as shouted by Mel Gibson) are enough to motivate people to certain extent. More importantly, I don't see any basis for an argument that non-religious people would be less motivated by sets of beliefs. Hollywood has certainly crafted a lot of heroic mythology and in retrospect some of it is easy to recognize as not just cheesy or appalling but genuinely harmful to some people (Birth of a Nation). I wonder how some modern classics will be judged in 50 years. Hopefully I won't be around for that.

Lastly, none of these points are to say that USA or "the west" are responsible for every act of terrorism or that islam or religion in general plays no part in terrorism, quite the opposite actually. What I believe is that religion is a complex phenomena that bleeds into pretty much every level of human existence whether we like it or not and thus should not be simplified or addressed in isolation. Filmic depictions of "islamic terrorism" should be framed firstly as "films about terrorism" unless the filmmakers are ready tackle this complexity responsibly. If I were a filmmaker instead of a lazy film viewer I would be terrified of accidentally contributing to the escalation of hate and extremist views in however small a way. On the other hand I believe that film as a medium has unique promise in easing these tensions and dismantling our inner terrors if handled with fearless grace and insight.

Anyway here ends my drunken patronising ramblings for tonight. If you actually read through them, you have my sympathies. Just please don't take any of it seriously.