The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
"A White Woman's Documentary About Muslim Extremists Is Being Canceled. Guess Why"
An interesting article here at Reason by Robby Soave; I don't know anything else about the controversy, so I can't vouch for it, but I've generally liked Soave's work, and thought it was worth pointing to. I'd be glad to point to thoughtful contrary views, if our readers recommend them. Here are the opening paragraphs (which also link to a New York Times article on the subject), slightly reordered:
Jihad Rehab is a documentary by Meg Smaker, a former firefighter who moved from California to Yemen and then to Saudi Arabia following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks…. The film centers on four men who were accused of terrorism, imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay, and later sent to a rehabilitation center in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The center's purpose is ostensibly to deradicalize and reintegrate its involuntary participants. The New York Times describes it as spanning "an unlikely distance between prison and boutique hotel." …
{Subsequent to its inclusion at the January 2022 Sundance Film Festival, both the film and filmmaker have become pariahs in elite film circles—mostly because Smaker, a white woman, dared to make a movie about the experience of Islamic men….
"Film critics warned that conservatives might bridle at these human portraits," notes The New York Times in a recent, much discussed article about Jihad Rehab's cancellation. "But attacks would come from the left, not the right."} …
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. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
How long until the Volokh Conspiracy and RedState merge?
If that's what it took and it would send you on your way, tomorrow would not be soon enough!
If you dislike having a bit of reason-based, mainstream commentary interfering with this blog's steady stream of wingnuttery, ask the proprietor to ban or censor me, just for being a liberal. He has done it before. If you ask nicely, and maybe use a vile racial slur when asking . . .
Just why are you even here? Do you just go places you hate or is that all places? You are quite boring as a troll.
The feeding frenzy in which progressives eat their own can't come fast and hard enough.
You think that might be enough to make conservatives -- and their stale, ugly, unpopular ideas -- competitive again at the modern American marketplace of ideas?
I just don't see a comeback for backwardness, bigotry, and organized religion (although those features will continue to be observed in a dozen or so small, obsolete, irrelevant states for another decade or two).
From the article:
"More than 230 filmmakers signed a letter denouncing the documentary. A majority had not seen it. The letter noted that over 20 years, Sundance had programmed 76 films about Muslims and the Middle East, but only 35 percent of them had been directed by Muslim or Arab filmmakers."
From Wiki (emphasis added):
"The Sundance Film Festival (formerly Utah/US Film Festival, then US Film and Video Festival) is an annual film festival organized by the Sundance Institute.[1] It is the largest independent film festival in the United States"
From Sundance Institute (emphasis added):
"Robert Redford founded the Institute in 1981 to foster independence, risk-taking, and new voices in American film. "
Sounds like they just want Muslim Americans to get a chance to have their films made and seen. It's dysfunctional that such a message can't be gotten across without singling out one particular film, likely otherwise blameless and perfectly good.
No, it actually doesn't sound like that:
""The bottom line is such," wrote Jude Chehab, a Lebanese-American filmmaker, in a review of Jihad Rehab that criticized Sundance for daring to feature it. "When I, a practising Muslim woman, say that this film is problematic, my voice should be stronger than a white woman saying that it isn't. Point blank.""
It's quite different from what you said.
And even if it weren't,
"Sundance noted that in its 2022 festival, of the 152 films in which directors revealed their ethnicity, 7 percent were Middle Eastern. Estimates place Americans of Arab descent at between 1.5 and 3 percent."
No, that's in agreement - letting Muslim voices speak up, with some authority, on Muslim subjects. Outsider views are valuable, but also lazy if the vast preponderance of the voices are those of outsiders.
letting Muslim voices speak up, with some authority, on Muslim subjects
Silencing someone on a subject is not even remotely the same as letting someone else speak up...you fucking moron.
That's an unfair comment.
There's no good evidence that Nige has ever had intercourse, much less has it while posting comments.
That's a fair cop.
"Sundance noted that in its 2022 festival, of the 152 films in which directors revealed their ethnicity, 7 percent were Middle Eastern. Estimates place Americans of Arab descent at between 1.5 and 3 percent."
In much of modern America, when asked your ethnicity, "prefer not to say" is a better answer than "white".
More than 230 filmmakers signed a letter denouncing the documentary. A majority had not seen it.
Because in the world of identity politics and mindless virtue signaling, the facts are irrelevant...except for the fact that the target is white.
Welcome to the new, cool, trendy, racism.....
. . . formally known as The Volokh Conspiracy.
How many times can you say the same thing?
Start your own blog for right thinking people such as yourself.
That is a point to be directed toward management of the blog that precipitates my responses.
Content that differs from these repetitive, selective, misleading nips at the ankles of the liberal-libertarian mainstream would be refreshing . . . and, it appears, beyond the reach on this group of right-wing law professors.
I always find it fascinating that anti-Christian pedophiles like Kirkland, who claim to be rationalists, leap so immediately to the defense of Islamists, who are crazier than the March Hare compared to Christian fundies on issues like sexual eccentricity, women's rights, human rights, 'democracy', etc. I can only conclude that those like Kirkland are sympathetic to the continued existence amongst certain Muslim male populations of the practice of pederasty. Kirkland and his various catamites would fit in well in Afghanistan, after all, so he'd like to MAGA (make Afghanistan great again), but he'll settle for lowering the age of consent in the US to six.
Your conclusions incline me to believe you suffered from religious schooling as a child and conservatism as an adult.
Muslims who believe supernatural stories are true strike me as nearly indistinguishable from Christians who fall for similar fairy tales. Is there any legitimate basis to distinguish them, other than 'my fairy tale can beat up your fairy tale . . . in fact, my fairy tale can beat up all other fairy tales'?
My comments concerning superstitious belief do not apply to readers 12 and younger. Childhood indoctrination by substandard parents is a powerful force among pre-adolescents.
After that, though . . . and especially with respect to adult-onset superstition . . . try to be be an adult. Choose reason. Every time. Thank you.
Kirkland doesn’t post to raise reasonable arguments or to persuade.
He posts to vent his rage and try to uplift himself by running down people he wants to think are inferior to him. And to yank chains and get a rise out of people. He’s gonna piss more people off by hating on Christianity than he is by hating on Islam because there are more Christians here. Simple decision.
He’s best simply ignored because he has nothing useful to say. Just the same tiresome schtick.
You prefer this white, male, right-wing blog’s tiresome Schlick to mine?
Any reason other than the bigotry? Maybe disaffectedness and disdain for progress?
This is dumb, but the very fact that it’s notable enough to rate an article shows it’s not the common thing your persecution complex wishes it were.
If it is not overt then it is covert....
Even no evidence is evidence!
Your beliefs fulfill something other than analysis of reality.
This got an article because the target is a woman.
A white man trying to make this film would have ended his career without getting so much as an asterisk in the histories of Hollywood.
Oh good lord. You think if the author were a guy this wouldn’t be published? By Reason?!
Oh good lord. You think Sundance would have even looked twice at this film if it was made by a white man? That Sundance?!
I dunno plenty of white guys seem to get movies into Sundance.
What concerns me most about "film festivals" is of the top of my head I can't remember a single film they showcased that was worth a shit. Maybe "The Gods Must Be Crazy" but not sure about that.
I remember maybe back in the 1960s a friend commented about the film reviews at Time magazine and said "I don't always agree with them but after reading them I can tell if I will like the film or not". I can say with almost no exceptions I know I will not like films selected by a "film festival". Kinda reminds me of the Steely Dan song Show Biz Kids lyrics "Showbiz kids making movies of themselves
You know they don't give a fuck about anybody else".
It's not clear to me if there is any real effect on the film except for fewer industry insiders getting to see it. Like if half of Congress walked out of the State of the Union address. 200 people hate it. What about the real audience?
The thing about "industry insiders" is they are industry insiders who make decisions on who gets hired by the movie industry and who gets seed money to make more indy films. Not to mention how much money is spent on ads for movies aimed at the real audience.
Indepent film festivals, yeah!
The effect is to discourage or prevent such movies from being made in the first place.
Yeah, but it’s people on the right who are the racists. Not the tolerant, inclusive progressives.
Fortunately for the 230, they’ve got their heads so far up their own asses that they’re impervious to embarrassment.
There's this paradox going on in the liberal-o-sphere.
So, if you're doing a movie, and have an ethnic/sexual/gender minority character. That character must be portrayed by that ethnicity/sexual orientation/gender (and now also films about them must be directed by such people). And not doing so is racist/bigoted/etc.
But, if you have a "white/straight" character, it is absolutely acceptable to cast them as a minority of some sort. And arguing they shouldn't be is somehow racist/bigoted/something else.
It's a paradox.
There were people complaining that too many of the voices in “Raya and the Last Dragon” weren’t from southeast Asia or the Philippines (cultures the film was merging). I thought it was a silly argument. Does that mean they needed a Chinese actor for Po in “Kung Fu Panda”? It’s an animated film, folks. [Yes, I know Lucy Liu, Jackie Chan and James Hong voiced characters in Kung Fu Panda. I bet Hong's done very well for his role.]
I don't know about these particular folks, but why would people of Asian origin who were born and grew up in America be any more qualified to scam and profiteer on a culture not their own, meaning some ancient Chinese mythology?
One is reminded of the claims that foreigners have no right to speak to, for, or about Germany’s Jews, made with similar shrillness and dripping with a similar patina of ethical virtue in the years leading up to the Holocaust.
If there’s one thing constant in history, it’s that people who want others silenced are absolute genious at coming up with pious-sounding reasons why silencing them is for their own good.