Obama, Clinton Reprise Role as Movie Reviewers in Pakistan Ads Meant to Calm Protests

At this point, maybe Rotten Tomatoes should add Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to their list of top critics. As protestors continue to make noise outside the U.S. embassy in Islamabad, the embassy has purchased advertisements on Pakistani television stations to publicize our leaders’ condemnations of Innocence of Muslims. Via the Associated Press:

The television ads in Pakistan feature clips of President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton during press appearances in Washington in which they condemned the video. Their words were subtitled in Urdu.

"We absolutely reject its content and message," said Clinton in the advertisement.

The advertisements end with the seal of the American Embassy in Islamabad, the Pakistani capital.

So are any of the Jewish faith out there repulsed by The Possession? Now’s your chance to demand the government weigh in on any act of filmmaking that offends you. Just go throw a rock at your local AMC theater and demand Kyra Sedgwick be punished for blasphemy.

This is fertile ground for parody – you listening out there, Saturday Night Live?

My search to find the commercial on YouTube was unsuccessful, but the description makes it sound like a clip show of all the speeches we’ve already seen and already been a bit horrified by. I did, however, track down some other videos mentioned in the story. The State Department managed to bother some bystanders somewhere (I’m assuming this is in D.C.) to give their “average American” opinions of the movie. Some of them, at least, made a stand for free speech, like this guy who says of the movie, “I don’t think they cause real harm. They should be ignored.”

But why ignore things when you can raise a huge stink in order to demand world leaders validate your faith?

And as I was writing this, President Obama has finally publicly agreed that Muslim extremists used the video as an excuse for an attack on U.S. interests. So we’re diplomatically compromising our nation’s promotion of free speech as a core value to what end, then? What does the State Department think the outcome of this commercial is going to be?

UPDATE: Here's the commercial. It's literally just parts of Obama's and Clinton's speeches following the Benghazi attack.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Caleb Turberville||

    It's easily better than anything by Michael Bay. In fact, I'm pretty sure Transformers 4 will usher in the Rapture and Tribulation.

  • Almanian's Evil Twin||

    STOP IT!!! GOD! DAMNIT!! STOP IT!!!

  • Tman||

    It really is terrible, isn't it?

    Grovelling like fucking children to a bunch of thugs and lazy punks.

    Obviously hindsight is 20/20, but I can't even begin to imagine what kind of response this administration would have had to 9/11.

    And to pre-empt, fuck you shreek.

  • Randian||

    I've finally come to see the Blessed Wisdom of the Filter.

    So far, it's consumed dunphy, Tony, and PB. And I have to tell you, I don't know why I ever advocated for engagement.

  • Tman||

    Yeah, I need to get that thing.

    Amazing how I miss Mingey, he was wrong most of the time but he was never really an asshole about it.

  • SIV||

    MNG was a total asshole. That was why he was kinda funny.

    MNG
    RIP

  • Killazontherun||

    He really could be an asshole when he wanted, but then he would write some things really worth reading on occasion, and I don't mean just the stuff to which I agree.

  • ||

    Holy shit, we've always been at war with Eastasia.

  • Pro Libertate||

    So Obama, a purported TOS fan, is just peachy with the silly reboot that merged Star Trek needlessly with Star Wars? Well, he's lost my vote. And I'm attacking the U.S. embassy in Florida.

  • ||

    You know, you're going to have to accept the fact that Star Trek is a JJ Abrams production now. What's done is done, and at least Uhura is played by Zoe Saldana. See? He threw us all a bone at least.

  • Paul.||

    is played by Zoe Saldana. See? He threw us all a bone at least.

    I see what you did there.

  • Pro Libertate||

    What's weird is that I like Fringe. So I'm only half annoyed.

  • ||

    You seem FULL ANNOYED to me, ProL.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I'm full annoyed about the stupid, pointless reboot, but I'm not full annoyed at all that is Abrams.

  • Cytotoxic||

    The reboot wasn't pointless. It was Star Trek that was pointless until Abrams gave it a point.

  • ||

    The reboot wasn't pointless. It was Star Trek that was pointless until Abrams gave it a point.

    You poor, misguided imitation of a man, you. For the first time in my life, I feel empathy.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Full annoyed anagrams to feudal nylon. I find that significant.

  • Caleb Turberville||

    Star Trek (2009) held up well for about a year, but I just can't watch it anymore. It's taken so long to get a sequel that I've had the chance to catch many TOS, TNG, and DS9 episodes (and even some of the better episodes of Voyager and Enterprise) and I've re-discovered my appreciation for old-Trek.

    Abram's Trek is just a poorly acted, outdated-SFX extravaganza that was nice for a brief moment, but it sucks now.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I was rather surprised by the love for it, because it always seemed kind of shallow and ephemeral. I predict the sequel does okay, but that it's not enough to keep it going.

    Next up, a series based on Vulcan. An HBO series.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Fuck that. If HBO is going to do it, I want set on Orion.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I accept correction. Do what BP said.

  • ||

    Yeah, I could get into an HBO series that depicted the Orion slave trade, kind of like The Sopranos meets Game of Thrones in space.

  • Cytotoxic||

    TOS, TNG, and DS9 episodes (and even some of the better episodes of Voyager and Enterprise) and I've re-discovered my appreciation for old shite-Trek.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    If you just called DS9 "shite", you are nothing more than a scoundrel who should swing from the nearest lamppost.

  • Cytotoxic||

    DS9? You're joking right? Only Voyager can top DS9 in embodying the awfulness of all that was pre-Abrams ST.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Some men just need killing.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    It's Opposite Day. Everyone knows it's Opposite Day.

  • ||

    No, he's just retarded. Remember, never ascribe to Opposite Day that which can be ascribed to stupidity.

  • ||

    It's Opposite Day. Everyone knows it's Opposite Day.

    NO, nobody knows it isn't Opposite Day.

  • Spoonman.||

    You are dead to me.

    DEAD!

  • ||

    You are dead to me.

    Did you consider him alive before?

  • Cytotoxic||

    "better Voyager and Enterprise"

    "Better" being a relative term and still inferior to JJ Abram's masterpiece.

  • ||

    Next on retarded movie comments: Cytotoxic claims Michael Bay Transformers movies "So much better than originals."

  • Cytotoxic||

    Originals? I guess you mean the TV show.

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    "Abram's Trek is just a poorly acted, outdated-SFX extravaganza "

    Sooooo . . . it was Star Trek . . .

  • Cytotoxic||

    +1

  • ||

    According to some reports, the next movie will feature Benedict Cumberbatch as Gary Mitchell in a remake of the TOS episode "Where No Man has Gone Before", so that might have potential, but I doubt it.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I always thought that if they wanted to undo the shitty Kirk death, the way to do it would be with Mitchell coming back and reviving his old friend. I mean, he was godlike--hard to figure he was permanently killed by a rock. And in the time it took him to recover, he figured out godhood and became nice again.

  • ||

    That's stupid. You're stupid. When Kirk puts someone down, they stay down. Besides, you could use the same logic with Apollo in "Who Mourns for Adonais", with the added bonus that he's not dead so you don't have to twist yourself into a pretzel explaining it.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Well, here's what I was thinking. Kirk being brought back by anything less than a god is insulting. Q's not worthy, and I can't figure out why Apollo would get involved.

    Mitchell, on the other hand, was Kirk's best friend, and, assuming he got better and the intervening time allowed him to get nice again and even maybe acquire some godlike benevolence, you have to figure he owed Kirk a reincarnation after all the shit that went down.

  • ||

    Kirk being brought back is insulting. Period. Dude, Shatner's going to die eventually anyway. What are you going to do then? Just accept that things are the way they are and move on. Look at the pretty green ladies and enjoy yourself.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Shatner's going to die? Have you seen him? Sure, he's portly, but he looks maybe 55. He's 82.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Incidentally, I'd be fine with dead Kirk. It's the lameness of the death I object to. How about we bring him back and re-kill him in the same movie?

  • ||

    I agree it was a completely lame death, in a lame movie that lamely tried to pass a lame torch from TOS to TNG, and even sort of lamely killed him off (he went into the Nexus and then came back) to super lamely kill him in the lamest way.

    Lame.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Instead of reboots, they should have unboots. They remove the film from official distribution, sue people who post it on the Internet, then deny that it ever existed.

    So, there is either no Kirk death at all, which is fine (not like everyone dies at the end of a series, right?), or they kill him in some other way. Figure he's got to save multiple universes at once at this point.

  • ||

    Yup, Kirk was saving the multiverse when your grandfather was in diapers. I have no idea if they managed to get Shatner in, but Nimoy is definitely out.

    And what the fuck was with Picard just discretely burying him on some shitty planet?

    He's James Tiberus Kirk for chrissakes, he should get his own planet that serves exclusively as a tomb/shrine to the most awesome individual to ever command a starship.

  • Generic Stranger||

    So, since I'm not a Star Trek nerd, I decided to look up how Kirk died on Wikipedia, and it turns out that Shatner and "Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stevens" wrote a book where Kirk is revived by the Borg.

  • SIV||

    Sally Kellerman is getting a bit long in the tooth to reprise her role in the original TV episode.

  • Pro Libertate||

    No, she's dead dead.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I mean her character is. Not Hotlips.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Abrams only "merged" Star Trek with "entertaining". Get over it.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Lucas did the same story better. Get over it.

  • Cytotoxic||

    What?

  • The Hammer||

    Wait, what merged Star Trek with Star Wars?

  • ||

    JJ Abrams, he's like the cinematic love child of Lucas and Spielberg, which can be good (Super 8) and bad (Star Trek and the lens flares).

  • Randian||

    Don't dare call it an apology, however.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    So now, all a would-be rioter has to do is look up offensive movies, posters, candy wrappers, etc., google to see if the U.S. State Department has condemned it, and if not, rush out into the streets chanting that the U.S. approves such-and-such a blasphemous work.

    Because if the U.S. *really* disapproved it, there would have been denunciations and disavowals, right?

    Or they could drop off a message with al-Jazeera: "We are insulted by the latest article printed in *Dog Fanciers' Weekly,* and we demand that the U.S. govt retract it."

    It's a win-win. If there's no response, then the U.S. government approves the insult, and you can riot. If Hilary Clinton does a video repudiating the article, then the group issues another statement saying that the lying infidel Clinton doesn't *really* oppose the article, because if she did she would prosecute the author. And if she prosecutes the author and sends him to prison for ten years, they can issue a statement that says the punishment is laughably inadequate because it should have been the death penalty.

    And if they execute the author publisher and editor they can still riot because they've discovered *another* article which offends them. Or they could make one up, like that imam did in the "Danish cartoon" controversy.

  • wef||

    What con artist sold the state department this idea? Ahmed Chalabi?

    But think about the content of this message. Who is the audience? Have these guys focus-grouped this? Is this something aimed, or is this just one pellet of a cloud of scattershot? Does the state department really think that a statement about religious tolerance would even be understood in the context that hilary is thinking that she is using it? O-bs-er: no justification for senseless violence - chastising muslim protesters - and then wrinkly white lady gives an assurance that in effect says that America is a secular state and guarantees that muslims can be muslims, but jews jews, christians christian, blah, blah, blah. There is a weird disconnection here - as if some DC sophomoric diplo wannabes are projecting their desires onto a paki audience, which they also are taking to be childish. I don’t get the ad at all.

  • Marshall Gill||

    wrinkly white lady

    I see Skeletor in the video. Who is this lady of which you speak?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    as if some DC sophomoric diplo wannabes are projecting their desires onto a paki audience,

    No need for simile, that is exactly what they are doing.

  • ||

    My brother is a law student applying at the State Department and I can definitely see him defending this. He is one of those New York Times/The Nation reading "liberals" who hasn't a clue about human nature or history.

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    :43 is the the exact moment Hillary Clinton becomes Emperor Palpatine.

  • DRM||

    Take every member of the State Department that approved of this, and assign them to unguarded consulates in Muslim countries.

    Then give the movie an NEA grant.

  • Flatulent Monkey||

    I don't care about some stupid Islamist video, I want to know what the administration is going to do about Fast and Furious.

    Not the ATF gun running scheme, the movies, they are truly awful. The government should do something about them.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement