Islamic Group Misses Point, Wants 'Towelhead' Title Changed
Filed under: Comedy, New Releases, Sundance, Warner Independent Pictures, Celebrities and Controversy, Toronto International Film Festival, Cinematical Indie
One of the more controversial and polarizing films at this year's Sundance Film Festival (and last year's Toronto fest) was Towelhead, a dark and uncomfortable comedy about a 13-year-old Lebanese-American girl living in Texas during the first Gulf War. It was directed by Alan Ball, who showed with American Beauty (which he wrote) and HBO's Six Feet Under (which he created) that he has a knack for finding humor in the sinister corners of suburbia. The film is set for limited release on Sept. 12 (here's Cinematical's review from Toronto), and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is calling on Warner Bros. to change the title before it comes out. A press release from the Greater Los Angeles Area office of CAIR said, "The word ('towelhead') is commonly used in a derogatory manner against people of the Muslim faith or Arab origin." Furthermore: "The use of such a derogatory term by a major film studio will serve to increase its acceptability in public discourse."
Really, CAIR? "Towelhead" is a slur? Then I wonder why the filmmakers would use it as a title -- unless -- you don't think -- nah -- could it be that the whole point of the movie is that this girl is trying to find her identity, and that "Towelhead" is one of the epithets she has to deal with while living in a redneck town during the Gulf War? Could it be that one of the movie's messages is that slurs like that are unacceptable? Could it be that only the most bigoted and idiotic of viewers could come out of it thinking, "I'm gonna start sayin' 'towelhead' more often!"?
CAIR has suggested that the film revert to the title under which it played at Toronto, Nothing Is Private. That title fits the story, too, but Towelhead is more direct -- and, more to the point, it's the title of the book on which the movie is based. The novelist, Alicia Erian, who also wrote the screenplay, is Arab-American. She told The Hollywood Reporter that she chose the title "to highlight one of the novel's major themes: racism."
I think CAIR's objections could be remedied by simply watching the movie. Over the course of it, the girl (played amazingly by Summer Bishil) comes to feel empowered and confident in who she is. She overcomes the slurs and the harassment, and she embraces her identity as an Arab-American and as a young woman. To complain about the title is to miss the forest because you're too busy looking at the trees. I think people who have actually seen the film understand that.
Tom Cruise and J.J. Abrams Reunite for 'Mission Impossible 4'
'Big Top Pee-Wee': The Original Benicio Del Toro Wolfman
Spin-ematical: New on DVD and Blu-ray for 2/9
Watch This: Brilliant Oscar-Nominated Short 'Logorama'
Chris Nolan to Lead 'Superman' Reboot!?
_thumbnail.jpg)
_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
8-26-2008 @ 3:16PM
AntiCAIR said...
Do a little reasearch into what type of organization CAIR really is and you will undertsand.
http://www.anti-cair-net.org/
Reply
8-26-2008 @ 4:18PM
eugene said...
Glad you posted this. Everyone should know what CAIR really is up to and who the people behind this organization are and the sort of radical ideology they believe in.
8-26-2008 @ 3:21PM
RP said...
"I think CAIR's objections could be remedied by simply watching the movie. "
To be fair, their whole point is that people don't have to watch the film to be exposed to its title. It's probably a safe assumption in fact that the majority of people that hear of the film won't see it.
Reply
8-26-2008 @ 3:34PM
Cincinnati Mike said...
"I think CAIR's objections could be remedied by simply watching the movie."
ROTFL... Dude, this is CAIR. It's about bullying.
Reply
8-26-2008 @ 4:13PM
Jehjeh said...
I agree that the name should be change. They should call it "Raghead"!
Reply
8-26-2008 @ 4:16PM
Loren said...
So is it now OK to make a movie called "Nigger" that pokes fun at racial prejudice?
Reply
8-26-2008 @ 4:18PM
Batzarro said...
Hey! That's MY argument! You give it back!
8-26-2008 @ 10:19PM
Jehjeh said...
That's been done already. There was a movie in the 70's called "Boss Nigger" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0072725/ http://www.impawards.com/1975/posters/boss_nigger.jpg There is also a book that goes by that name too. http://www.amazon.com/Nigger-Strange-Career-Troublesome-Word/dp/0375421726
8-26-2008 @ 5:39PM
Eric D. Snider said...
Yes, and for the same reason I think "Towelhead" is OK. The only people who will hear the title "Towelhead" and take it to mean the word is acceptable are people who already think it's acceptable, people who already use it.
MOST people will hear the title and think, "Wow, they're using such an unacceptable word in a movie title? I wonder why." Its use will still be shocking to them. They won't become desensitized to it. (If lots of movies started using the word "towelhead" in their titles, then yeah, the word would start to be less shocking. But one film isn't gonna do it.)
Similarly, if a movie were called "Nigger," some racists who already use the term would say, "Hey, see, it's OK to say it now! Haw haw!" But people who know the word is offensive would be surprised to see it in a movie title and would wonder what's going on.
8-26-2008 @ 4:17PM
Batzarro said...
I don't know. If the movie was called "Nigger" or "Spick" I might expect a similar reaction(at least, I know I would on that last one). On the other hand, if the message of the movie is to tolerance, one such title could draw attention to it's presumpted audience.
It's complicated, I guess, is my point.
Reply
8-26-2008 @ 4:32PM
Sam said...
Ask Nas how naming his new Album with the N-word worked out for him.
8-26-2008 @ 4:21PM
eugene said...
Why not? Certainly a portion of the African American population have no issue using the word in their music, movies, comedy shows, etc.
Reply
8-26-2008 @ 4:58PM
Ghonius said...
Lovely, how the first stone on the comments is a link to a site run by a man considered the worst person on earth by Matt Olberman. The link to anti-cair is run by Daniel Pipes and David Horowitz, two of the most renowned Islam haters on the planet who are tied into AIPAC and paid for by racist conservative groups. They also run most of the sites that come up when you type 'Islam' in google. Sites I won't mention that are basically filled with lies and hates. These are the quality of people you use to illustrate how CAIR is bad?
If the ADL (Jewish version of CAIR) came out against a movie with Jews called Kikeheads, would you call them bullying? No, you wouldn't. You would rally behind them and retreat into the corner of your office writing comments on the awfuls of the title, banding together and destroy the films negatives, sue the ass off the filmmakers and create chaos. However, because its a Muslim watchdog group, by American subconscious brainwash law, you must associate them with savages and terror and praise whatever they are against. Brilliant.
Forget about CAIR for a second, since you all lock and step go with whatever you heard from Pipes, think about the double standard you're espousing. So, although the movie is about "tolerance" anyone pissed at the term "Towelhead" is a terrorist? So, as a Muslim, if I'm pissed at the title, I'm a terrorist and should be marginalized because "all you" think I'm being reactionary. Sick. Think about what you're saying. Your saying I should embrace the title, under all circumstances, or face your groupthink attacks. Furthermore the angry comments on cinematical on anything Islam related reminds me a rash on my balls thats comes whenever a room full of jerk-offs decide what Muslims "need to do". STFU and put yourself into our shoes for a second before you begin your cliche tirades on fundies. I'll make a movie called -- oh wait, there's no term for what you guys are, jerk offs? No, that doesn't indicate a religious group. White Jerk Offs? No, because some of you are not. So, see what I'm doing. I'm polarizing, and that's the point here. The proverbial "They" that don't like the title have a f*cken right to not like the title, end of story.
Reply
8-27-2008 @ 4:40PM
Kevin said...
Absolutely right man. Since when does a young man, living in new york, who happens to be Jewish, get to tell Muslims what they should and shouldn't be upset about? Basically telling them that they "just don't get it". The thing about this word to consider is that a lot of people won't get that some people find it offensive. Sure, if you made a movie called N#gg#r then the only people saying it would be fine would be those who are probably already racist. But the title of this movie isn't nearly as well known or understood, so you are introducing it to a large audience that now can tie it to a religious and cultural group. Sure, that can also be used to break down barriers and stereotypes, but it can also go the other way. I however, as an atheist, white American, am not going to sit here and tell the people about whom the title refers that they shouldn't be offended because they clearly don't get the intent.
8-26-2008 @ 5:40PM
Travis Tidmore said...
I just got home from a press screening of this film, and while I'm emotionally trained, I completely agree with this article. Clearly the group has not seen the movie, heard of the book, or know anything about the movie what-so-ever. Someone needs to remove their head from their a**.
Also, while I recognize that "Towelhead" is a good film, well shot, with a good plot, it was one of, if not The, most cringe-inducing, awkward movies I've ever seen.
For some reason the Dakota Fanning film "Hounddog" (which I haven't seen, but have read/heard a lot about) kept coming to mind.
I can see why the film was so polarizing at Sundance.
Reply
8-27-2008 @ 7:13PM
ptstarz said...
CAIR worked to see the film, was in discussion with Warner and has also gone through the book.
The book, the content of the film is not the issue, never was. Nor was the issue about censoring artistic ability of Ball or of the Arian. The studio, the author and CAIR all agree that this is a derogatory term.
Whats at issue, and the difference here is what that term means in the way it is used and perceived by people. When the movie goes through more then one name change and ends up being named a derogatory term, then obviously there seems to be a PR twist to it and not just an artistic application.
The second part is perception. Most Muslims/Arabs and even more so Sikhs(!) who are not even Muslims or Arabs but Punjabi and practice a religion that is no where near Islam and the majority of the men wear turbans as a religious requirement which in Islam is not a religious requirement for men are bullied upon in school, at work, while driving their taxis, at their businesses, in the stores. When a term like that is used to market, promote a movie it not only brings those humiliating experiences back. It puts the person in a situation of victimization all over again. Never knowing who will see that movie, the title its advertisement and use it as a way to dehumanize.
We also are aware of bullying in schools, this is just another way to promote the bullying of people who are not the same, and whats worse is that kids listen to their parents and those around them and extend what they experience into their interaction with their peers without understanding whats right or wrong.
I believe that is the issue, not the movie or the content. All of that is totally in another realm, because I personally saw a screening of the movie and left very disturbed and found nothing "comedic" about it.
8-26-2008 @ 6:09PM
Mike said...
I think the lesson here is that if you remove a word, then it will by proxy remove the hate and the racism surrounding it. If you're not lucky enough for that to happen and people continue to be complete bigoted pricks, then at least the word is gone. Racists may be douche bags, but at least they follow rules well. I doubt racists are smart enough to think up new derogatory names anyway. Right? Done and done.
P.S. Eric, my "One Day At A Time" fanclub would like to respectfully ask you stop using the name "Snider" as we're not convinced you represent the legacy as we would prefer. Thanks in advance!
Reply
8-26-2008 @ 10:22PM
Jehjeh said...
Some fan club. You don't even know that his name was "Schneider" not "Snider"!!
8-26-2008 @ 9:01PM
Zohra said...
Was the person who started this thread writing this just to take a jab at a Muslim American organization that works towards advocacy and communication between Americans and Muslim Americans?
Isn't it in poor taste to bring this film into anti-CAIR agenda.
An organization is allowed to show dislike. I highly doubt that CAIR have the power to change the name. Not sure why there is so much anger towards an organization that is expressing sensitivity over a derrogatory term that is usually screamed out before racist beat-downs.
But I understand Towelhead is a way to draw people's attention to see a film about identity/assimilation, so its certainly an interesting way to do it. I saw the preview and I was cringing as the older man was flirting with this 13/14 year old girl.
I will see it. I have been called a Towelhead (and beaten up as a group of fat girls screamed this into my ear-- this was during the Gulf War I). Actually, expressing such vehement anger towards an organization is a lot like those fat girls bloated with preverted nationalism (and American flag shorts) beating up skinny brown-skinned girls for objecting to the name Towelhead.
Nice discussion -- I'm glad others can see the complication of this derrogatory name.
Reply
8-26-2008 @ 9:42PM
anne said...
I haven't seen the film. But I wonder if it's not worth considering what an accurate "equally offensive title" might be. Towelhead is certainly derogatory, but it's not the same as the n-word, in my opinion. I'm thinking something comparable might be...Wetbacks? Or (I'm a Jew, so I'm trying to put myself in these shoes) Hebe? So...offensive, but when used in a title, probably intentionally provocative? Gotta give the public a little credit, don't we? Okay, maybe this is just a semantics exercise. But if we're arguing about a title, which is a word...you get the idea.
This reminds me of a discussion about TROPIC THUNDER. There was an article in the LA Times talking about the word "retard." It said (I'm paraphrasing), "What if the characters were talking about going Full Jew (instead of Full Retard). Would that be offensive to you? And I thought to myself, "Hmm. That is pretty offensive."
Until I saw the movie. And then I realized that people were taking all of this stuff out of context. Yes!! Funny! Satire! It has a point! Not really offensive after all.
And my point...is that everything is about context. Yes, I realize that the title exposes people to the word even if they DON'T see the film. But, wow, is that what it's all come down to?
Reply