Back in July a controversial film appeared on YouTube. The low budget, poorly made film appeared to have been made with a main goal of offending and inflaming Muslims, with its depiction of Muhammad as a "hypocritical and bloodthirsty philanderer in a truly terrible costume," in the words of our own Adi Robertson.
A lot of controversy resulted when the video went viral: YouTube pulled it from several markets when it was rumored to be a source of protests that broke out in Benghazi, Libya in September a rumor later proved inaccurate. That attack resulted in the killing of U. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other people. Vanity Fair has published an account of just how the film came to be made, with actors who didn't know what it was about, and the man with several names behind it.
By Inquizitor on The attack probably took much more than a couple of days planning, although there is a thought that the attack could have been brought forward due to the video and the significance of the date. By d0mth0ma5 on I think you answered it yourself: the attack was planned because of the date.
By paulie. By bilalakhtar on Are you certain it was a lie, and not simply poor communication? By Mailer Daemon Core on It probably was originally poor communication, but they fumbled it so much that it turned into a pretty big cover-up. Tons of people have been leaving the State Department over this.
By Phoebus on By mmmcfc on Violence is NOT justified for anything. And since the video was MEANT to offend, my fellow Muslims should have just stayed quiet and have done nothing about it.
If the video would have been ignored, all that would have happened was that the video producers would have lost money for nothing, and failed to gain any publicity. Unfortunately, not only did they become famous, but they became heroes in comparison to us Muslims who resorted to violence.
Margaret McKeown. Usually, actors sign release forms or perform in a work-for-hire context that take away the question altogether. When Kozinski previously decided that in the absence of such a release, Garcia could assert copyright on her performance, he did so upon the conclusion that an actor evinced sufficient creativity. The ruling seemed at odds with prior holdings — particularly Aalmuhammed v. In order for a valid copyright, a work has to be fixed in a tangible medium.
The MPAA chose not to weigh in on this important case. Critics like to talk about the "films of the year", but the awful truth is that this year's most significant movie may well turn out to be a non-movie , a hoax movie, a bigoted piece of poison calculated to inflame the Muslim world.
Innocence of Muslims is a minute low-budget video on YouTube, abysmally scripted, acted and directed; it might be risible were it not for the ugly Islamophobia which it promotes and whose effects are now being seen around the world.
It was apparently made by an Egyptian-American based in the greater Los Angeles area, one Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, reportedly a Coptic Christian, who initially claimed to be an Israeli property magnate called Sam Bacile, using funds from "Jewish donors".
How Nakoula actually bankrolled this film is not clear. He says his wife's family contributed the money; he himself is a convicted fraudster. This video is routinely described as a "trailer" and some screenings — of something — do appear to have taken place at one rented Californian cinema, but there is no proof that audiences ever saw anything substantially longer than this, nor that there is anything resembling a "film" of which this is a "trailer".
Yet the damage is done. People throughout the Muslim world are being persuaded that there is a proper feature-length entertainment, backed by Jewish donors and being watched by Americans in their movie theatres.
The video appears first to show Christians being attacked and a medical clinic trashed by a Muslim mob in Egypt while the police stand idly by. Here is where — for what it's worth — the bulk of Nakoula's budget appears to have been spent.
Then we cut to a crass supposed retelling of the life of the prophet Muhammad. Hammy and preposterous acting is the order of the day, along with crude green-screen staging.
0コメント