No Islamic Landmarks Were Harmed in the Making of '2012'
Filed under: Action, Sci-Fi & Fantasy, Sony, Politics
Given the topic at hand, I'd like to make it clear up front that neither I nor Cinematical are taking sides in this story about Roland Emmerich's forthcoming All Landmarks Must Die opus, 2012; I just find it a curious insight into the mind of the man who knows how to make a building fall over but good.
The trailer for 2012 plays like a highlight reel of civilization falling apart all over the world, but it's religion that gets the brunt of Emmerich's digital pounding: A Buddhist temple gets hit by a tidal wave. The Sistine Chapel crumbles to pieces as a split tears right down the middle of Michelangeo's painting of God touching Adam's finger. St. Peter's Basilica rolls over onto a crowd of devoted worshipers. Rio de Janeiro's iconic Christ the Reedemer statue falls to earth as its wracked by shockwaves. The White House is even crushed by, of all things, an aircraft carrier. But eagle eyed fans of watching organized religion get its disaster porn comeuppance will have noticed that there are no Islamic landmarks on the CGI chopping block.
That wasn't always the plan, however. Emmerich explained to SCI FI Wire that he had originally hoped the Kaaba, one of the holiest sites in the Islamic religion, would join the visual wrath of 2012, but that his co-screenwriter Harald Kloser talked him out of it:
"Well, I wanted to do that, I have to admit ... but my co-writer Harald said I will not have a fatwa on my head because of a movie. And he was right. ... We have to all ... in the Western world ... think about this. You can actually ... let ... Christian symbols fall apart, but if you would do this with [an] Arab symbol, you would have ... a fatwa, and that sounds a little bit like what the state of this world is. So it's just something which I kind of didn't [think] was [an] important element anyway in the film, so I kind of left it out."
And that raises a curious observation about what is and isn't acceptable as far as desecrating religions symbols on film goes. Emmerich does have a point, it's been historically okay to let Christian symbols fall apart, it's okay to let business sky scrappers topple over, it's okay to smash down symbolic government residences, but it's, apparently, not okay to smite an Islamic landmark. Okay, so the Kaaba, located at the heart of Mecca, Saudi Arabia, is the most sacred site in all of Islam, but that shouldn't grant it inherent immunity from civilization-ending events.
So what do you think? Is it hypocritical of Emmerich to stomp all over other religions but give Islam a pass? Or is its exclusion acceptable so long as it didn't fit with the story?
Oh, and before the discussion gets too heavy, I'd just like to point out the director's explanation to Sci-Fi Wire as to why he thinks the cruise shipping rolling over in Poseidon is the greatest disaster image ever put to film, "Because it's a really big object that rolls over."
Ah, Really Big Object That Rolls Over; that better be the name of Roland Emmerich's next cinematic fatwa against gravity, logic, and sound structural foundations. [Honestly, how exciting would a 43 foot tall cube falling over be, anyway? It can't even roll!]
Black Friday Movie Deals: Best Buy
Sex and Nudity Don't Draw You to the Movies?
What Makes a Real Vampire?
Robert Downey Jr. Wants to Retire?
Jaycee Dugard's Horrific Story to Get a Sleazy Adaptation
_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
11-02-2009 @ 5:41PM
Matt said...
The guy doesn't want to have a bunch of insane Taliban gunning for him, hard to blame him for that. I think all religious symbols shoudl be fair game, but you have to remember it's the world we live in influencing the decision, not the man making the movie.
Reply
11-14-2009 @ 2:43PM
ryan morales said...
yes, matt is right, he is just watching his head :-)
11-15-2009 @ 11:12PM
Bothered Bob said...
So we're pussyfooting around the world of Islam now? I know it's only 'entertainment,' but this is crap. Everything should be fair game for a piece of entertainment.
I'm not sure I want to see the movie if only the Christians, Jews and Buddhists are dissed by nature. I don't see why a few Islamic sites don't get equal time and are flattened, too. This should send the message that NO ONE is above the wrath of God and nature.
11-02-2009 @ 5:45PM
Chris said...
Is it understandable why he wouldn't want to get involved or put himself at risk of some kind of backlash? Of course. Guy's looking out for himself.
But is it a double-standard, and does it say something about the world today that he felt he had to exclude Islamic landmarks. Yes. Absolutely yes.
Reply
11-04-2009 @ 12:04PM
Vikilyn said...
I agree. I also think that there are plenty of secular landmarks that are fairgame. If one religion is exempt all should have been. I was interested in seeing this movie but I think I'll pass.
11-15-2009 @ 10:14PM
ryan morales said...
I heard he is GAY...no wonder he is a coward , he is afraid of his life hehehehe :-)
11-02-2009 @ 5:55PM
HalfAStick said...
I don't know if it's hypocritical at all. Man's just afraid he'd be painting a bullseye on his forehead and he's probably right. Remember what happened in Denmark over some stupid cartoons.
Reply
11-02-2009 @ 6:10PM
Dan said...
I don't really have anything new to contribute, but I just wanted to say I agree with the three gentlemen in front of me wholeheartedly.
Reply
11-02-2009 @ 7:25PM
Creep said...
Pussy.
Reply
11-02-2009 @ 7:49PM
mdk said...
Because generally a Christian, Buddhist, or Hindu won't KILL YOU for a stupid special effect in a moronic movie, but a Muslim WILL kill you for glancing at a woman shrouded in a full body covering, then kill the woman too for the "crime" of being glanced at. Never mind having an effect in your movie where the Kaaba falls over or gets hit with a meteor, these people will kill you for showing the bottom of your shoe for crying out loud! Emmerich just wants to live and make more crappy movies.
Reply
11-07-2009 @ 8:25PM
zul said...
peace to all who loves peace,....Read...read...read in the name of The Creator......read the miracles in The Quran....you will have different perceptions about Islam,,,,,,stop giving remarks based on twisted facts......check this out..
The big Bang theory was already in the Quran, so do many other new scientific discoveries about the the universe,,,,was already mentioned by The Creator, Almighty....eg the NASA red rose picture , the continental drift theories etc.....read...read...read....in the name of your Creator......Quran is the last revealation...read...read...read...you may become better muslims than any of us that you hate.......the Creator will protect the Kaaba from human destruction,,, history has proven it...read....read...read...The Creator mentioned in the Quran than bit by bit the proof will be revealed to mankind so that they can see that the Quran is from their Lord.
11-07-2009 @ 8:31PM
mdk said...
Hey, I know most Muslims are peace-loving people and good neighbors. I have several Muslim families in my neighborhood and they are very friendly. Also, there are what (?) 2 billion Muslims in the world and maybe only a few thousand hardcore terrorists, okay? It's just that you guys have a problem with your "crazy element". This isn't to say that Christianity and Judaism don't also have their own "crazy elements" as well. Hinduism does also or so I understand. The problem is created when a religion claims to have "the one true god" and "the only way to salvation". People of slight intellect in that mindset can be easily manipulated into almost anything. Note I said "people of slight intellect", since intelligent religious people realize that violence of any kind is counter to the teachings of their religions. The world's faiths should all do more to educate their adherents and defuse the sorts of situations that create radicalism. I, like you, want a future world free of 9/11's, Jonestowns, Crusades, Pogroms and other such horrors perpetrated by misguided people who violate the very tenants of the faiths they claim to uphold.
11-02-2009 @ 9:20PM
Christian M. Howell said...
It worries me that we don't have that kind of devotion to our religious beliefs.
Reply
11-03-2009 @ 9:45AM
Felicia said...
I hope you're being ironic.
11-03-2009 @ 4:48PM
Roy B said...
Sounds more facetious than ironic, hopefully it's one or the other rather than being serious.
11-02-2009 @ 11:45PM
John said...
Lesson learned.
The way to get respect, is to be feared. That fear will drive the Hollywood and Academia hypocrites to betray their most cherished beliefs, freedom of expression and right to offend. They will grovel and squirm before you. Just act crazy.
There's a Spanish saying that goes: Against a madman, it takes a madman and a half.
Parts of Spain spent 800 years under Islam.
Reply
11-03-2009 @ 12:10AM
Paolo said...
He's a pornographer.
Reply
11-03-2009 @ 12:27AM
David said...
People are insecure about their beliefs so they join a religion which teaches them their beliefs. So a whole group of people have the same beliefs but they are still insecure individuals so you cant really say anything about their religion, because then you are challenging their personal belief system. People born into it are born into bondage. its ironic because many religions have, at their core, a person who had their own internal belief system based on self knowledge and exploration like Jesus, Buddha, Muhammad, and so on. So many people have not found the strength to go it on their own and find their own way. Which is true freedom. Religions enslave people whether they know it or not.
It doesn't bother me that they didn't put in any Islamic icons. Hes smart avoiding evangelical fanatical people. I think martyrdom and religious fighting really shows a weakness of self. It really shows how much someone is lacking a true connection to god. Not the other way around.
Reply
11-03-2009 @ 11:08AM
Ghulam Muhammed said...
Why try to reinvent the wheel? Just to prove one freedom to invent?
11-03-2009 @ 3:47PM
David said...
You say that is if its a chore to "reinvent" it... We are a part of god and are participating in the new constantly.