The headlines scream "Jolie called insensitive to Bosnian rape victims!" and "Angelina Jolie called ignorant by Womens Victims of War". But if you read the story, and read their statement, it becomes quite clear that this group (however noble their work is up to this point) has used the media's obsession with smacking down big celebrities as a way to get their name in the newspapers. The gist is that Jolie is directing a drama set during the Bosnian war, around 1992-1995. It concerns a romantic plot involving a Serbian prison guard and a Bosnian captive, a woman who was once his girlfriend (sounds like the plot of the first 'Sayid episode' in the first season of Lost). This tidbit has been tossed about as 'proof' that Angelina Jolie is making a film about a rape victim who falls in love with her rapist. They have not seen the script and prior attempts by Jolie to set up a meeting with the group have been unsuccessful.
I'm guessing they haven't seen the script because the released the critical statement before they asked to see a script. The statement released seriously trashes Jolie (calling her ignorant and asking for her goodwill UN ambassadorship to be stripped) for making a movie that COULD contain insensitive and/or inflammatory material and COULD 'make light' of the plight of Bosnian rape victims. This may just be an attempt for the group to gain free attention and/or get a donation from Jolie or the studio funding her picture. GLAAD pulled the same prank on Kevin Smith back in 2001, inexplicably calling (the otherwise lousy) Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back homophobic because its brain-dead lead character uses 'gay' as an asexual negative slur (nevermind that he is explicitly called out on that in the film). Smith quickly cut them a check and the matter was never brought again. Extortion: 01, Honest examination of the issue at hand: 00.
And since the media jumped all over a story that let them spin a headline to the effect of 'Jolie called insensitive to Bosnian rape victims', they fell for it without realizing that there was no meat to the story. The crux of their protests is that Jolie should have been expected to keep this specific group informed in every part of the filmmaking process, from screenwriting to casting to location scouting. Nevermind that Jolie tried to set up a meeting in Hungary, but the group refused, wanting the meeting to take place in Bosnia (which is ironic, since such earlier 'controversy' prevented the film from actually shooting first-unit footage in Bosnia). Furthermore, even if the script does not contain a 'rapist and rape victim fall in love' subplot (which it allegedly does not), the group is still adamant that simply presenting a film involving a romantic narrative set in such a camp is unacceptable and has caused the group "mental suffering". So they won't accept a meeting with Jolie because they don't like the location, then they criticize Jolie for not meeting with them. Then they attack the screenplay for allegedly containing a sympathetic Serbian rapist, then they state that even if it does not contain said element, than the movie as its described is still not appropriate because its existence causes 'mental suffering'.
Angelina Jolie has every right to make whatever movie she wants. As we critics and scholars always say, it's not 'what it's about', but rather 'how its about it'. Let's be honest, had Internet culture existed in 1993, Spielberg would have been roasted by groups demonizing Schindler's List sight unseen because it 'was alleged to contain' a subplot involve romance between a Jewish camp laborer (Embeth Davidtz) and her Nazi captor (Ralph Fiennes). Is that an accurate portrayal of the movie? Nope. But it's close enough to the truth to make a scandalizing story out of it. It's tough to criticize something called 'Women Victims of War' and the work they theoretically do, but the group is currently playing dirty pool.
To somewhat viciously attack someone who has been a 'get-your-hands dirty' advocate for refugees around the world because of their (at this point) fabricated concerns about sympathetic treatment of rapists contained in a film they haven't seen from a script they haven't read is absurd and counter-productive. Unless of course, the purpose is not honest activism but merely using Jolie's celebrity as a way to get extra media attention. If that's the case, then it's Free Publicity From a Sensationalist Media: 01, Honest Examination of the Issues at Hand: 00.
Scott Mendelson
18 comments:
Thank You so much! I wish the mainstream press could write this instead of the sensationalized bs but that's too much to ask. So again thank you! for being one of the few people who get it and isn't afraid to call it.
Whether you like it or not, these women have EVERY RIGHT to express their opinion. And, by the way, Jolie NEVER denied that there was a rape storyline in the film.
Try checking your facts before defending some overrated celebrity by bashing rape victims.
Or did you think this would get you your 15 minutes?
First of all, they have as much a right to express their opinion as I have to denounce said opinion. Second of all, the makers of said film have said repeatedly that the core story does NOT involve a rape victim falling in love with her rapist. While we do agree that Jolie is perhaps overrated, that doesn't mean that she deserves to be criticized based on false rumors and condemned by a group that seems to be moving the goal post every time the latest complaint is addressed.
Ignorant blogger defending Ignorant Jolie. Nice. Jolie is victimizing these poor women a second time. What does one not get about this situation? These women were brutally raped. Maybe seeing a movie about a love story between a Bosnian and Serbian that took place at the time they were being horrifically raped is more than they can handle. Whether the rape was edited out of the script or never was in the script is irrelevant. It was a bad idea from the start. I live in NYC and I would not want to see a glorified love story about one one the 9/11 hijacker conspirators and a New York woman who happened to be in the towers that day (and I wasn't directly brutally attacked).
"Maybe seeing a movie about a love story between a Bosnian and Serbian that took place at the time they were being horrifically raped is more than they can handle."
Then they can simply not see the film.
"I live in NYC and I would not want to see a glorified love story about one one the 9/11 hijacker conspirators and a New York woman who happened to be in the towers that day"
Then I would advise you not to see such a film, just as you probably didn't have the desire to see United 93 or World Trade Center.
"Whether the rape was edited out of the script or never was in the script is irrelevant."
Considering the crux of the sensationalist charges is that Jolie is making a film that glorifies rapists, I'd say whether or not the film actually contains such elements is pretty damn important.
"It was a bad idea from the start."
Anything and everything can be made into quality art. It all depends on how its done.
Wrong again. I have seen many films about 9/11 including those you mention. It is not the same thing. Where in those films do you seen a New York woman falling in love with one of the hijacking conspirators? You don't. Nor do I suspect you ever will. Because it wouldn't wash in this country just as Jolie's desperate attempt for credibility and an Oscar isn't going over well with Bosnian rape victims. You need some sensitivity training, young man.
It is amazing to me how the media have sacrificed the truth for sensationalism. Other rape victim organizations have called out this particular woman and said she she does not speak on their behalf. They went on to say that Jolie did meet with some rape victims on her last trip to Bosnia, but you will not know this reading the AP or Reuters account.
This woman has latched on to Jolie's fame to gain notoriety and in so doing has over reached as most of Jolie's critics are wont to. Jolie's record on humanitarian work is impeachable, and this woman in the end has not only lost credibility but has cost her group some support.
Like Jolie said today, 95% of her cast and crew lived through the war and some fought in it, so what makes this woman's pain deeper than theirs.
I respect Jolie for refusing to pay her off and for being classy and sensitive in her dealings with this woman, I would have told her to take a hike the first she campaigned to get the permit revoked.
People read and read, but do not comprehend. The couple were in love BEFORE the war. The movie goes on to show what happened to this relationship because of the war. Everyone wants to criticize, but no one wants to know the FACTS of the movie. I respect these women and sympathize with what they have gone through, but I know that I can never expect to feel as they do as I have not gone through anything similar. Having said that, I don't believe they would want ANY movie to be made regarding the war, but they aren't going to say that, that doesn't incite people, but to make it a personal, emotionally charged issue gets people riled up. Their continued emphasis on rape (which isn't in the film) is just a smoke screen. They have not even read the script, one which their own Government approved, and yet they continue to bash Jolie. Even victims of atrocities aren't beyond being manipulative and trying to get publicity any way that they can. This is a movie and if all movies about horrific tragedies were never made, we would have been deprived not only of some excellent films, but the insight and empathy that most of them have given to those circumstances. Jolie agreed to meet with them, but THEY refused. Now they're angry because she didn't contact them BEFORE the movie was in process or through the entire process. While that might have been diplomatic, it would have dragged the process to a standstill. Had that been done, I don't think it would have changed their opinion. They have their own agenda, else they would be rallying in front of what goes for their Leaders home in protest that THEY approved the film. The majority of the actors were affected by the war as they are from that region, if they had thought the film was exploitive or in bad taste, they would not have agreed to be in it. Other than not make the movie, Jolie has done everything one can be 'reasonably' expected to do. Again, while I sympathize with what they have gone through, I don't think films should be made on the basis of ONE groups opinion and a ill-informed opinion at that.
Thank you for writing your thoughts down in the blog. I agree with them. Angelina Jolie has already said that the movie is NOT about a rape victim falling in love with her rapist. And the truth of the matter is that Bosnians and Serbians and Croatians and Slovenians, many of them would have lived side by side in the cities (may be not so much in the country side), as cities tend to be polygots. Do a little research and you will find that the Yugoslavia has existed for more than 50 years in various forms by 1990. What is tragic and unsurprising is NOT that a Bosnian woman should fall in love with a Serbian man before the war. Rather what is tragic is that there was still a war, that the differences were so entrenched at a political and possibly cultural level that a war started anyway despite individual connections.
This article really is an insensitive defense of an indefendible celebrity, who is just using her celebrity to create controversy, but not once denying her movie was about a rape victim. Not once. Jolie said that people should not judge her, but rather should see the movie. Very manipulative comment from her. Dancing around the issue, not denying it, therefore making it plausable that there is a rape storyline, yet telling people they should see the movie because it is in their best interests.
In this way, Angelina Jolie ensured that there would continue to be doubt in people's minds about the rape storyline, with the aim to create controversy.
If Angelina Jolie's aim was to be as sensitive to these people in this country who had horrible crimes perpetrated against them, then why did she not back her words with actions? Because she was just mouthing off nonsense and never intended to do anything. It was all about her own self-aggrandisement, nothing else.
I am totally unimpressed with Angelina Jolie and her behaviour.
I am really unimpressed with you too. Your article (and subsequent comments to your readers) suggests you have no sensitivity for women who have been victimised in any way at all. That is pretty poor form.
This article really is an insensitive defense of an indefendible celebrity, who is just using her celebrity to create controversy, but not once denying her movie was about a rape victim. Not once. Jolie said that people should not judge her, but rather should see the movie. Very manipulative comment from her. Dancing around the issue, not denying it, therefore making it plausable that there is a rape storyline, yet telling people they should see the movie because it is in their best interests.
In this way, Angelina Jolie ensured that there would continue to be doubt in people's minds about the rape storyline, with the aim to create controversy.
If Angelina Jolie's aim was to be as sensitive to these people in this country who had horrible crimes perpetrated against them, then why did she not back her words with actions? Because she was just mouthing off nonsense and never intended to do anything. It was all about her own self-aggrandisement, nothing else.
I am totally unimpressed with Angelina Jolie and her behaviour.
I am really unimpressed with you too. Your article (and subsequent comments to your readers) suggests you have no sensitivity for women who have been victimised in any way at all. That is pretty poor form.
People read and read, but do not comprehend. The couple were in love BEFORE the war. The movie goes on to show what happened to this relationship because of the war. Everyone wants to criticize, but no one wants to know the FACTS of the movie. I respect these women and sympathize with what they have gone through, but I know that I can never expect to feel as they do as I have not gone through anything similar. Having said that, I don't believe they would want ANY movie to be made regarding the war, but they aren't going to say that, that doesn't incite people, but to make it a personal, emotionally charged issue gets people riled up. Their continued emphasis on rape (which isn't in the film) is just a smoke screen. They have not even read the script, one which their own Government approved, and yet they continue to bash Jolie. Even victims of atrocities aren't beyond being manipulative and trying to get publicity any way that they can. This is a movie and if all movies about horrific tragedies were never made, we would have been deprived not only of some excellent films, but the insight and empathy that most of them have given to those circumstances. Jolie agreed to meet with them, but THEY refused. Now they're angry because she didn't contact them BEFORE the movie was in process or through the entire process. While that might have been diplomatic, it would have dragged the process to a standstill. Had that been done, I don't think it would have changed their opinion. They have their own agenda, else they would be rallying in front of what goes for their Leaders home in protest that THEY approved the film. The majority of the actors were affected by the war as they are from that region, if they had thought the film was exploitive or in bad taste, they would not have agreed to be in it. Other than not make the movie, Jolie has done everything one can be 'reasonably' expected to do. Again, while I sympathize with what they have gone through, I don't think films should be made on the basis of ONE groups opinion and a ill-informed opinion at that.
Whether you like it or not, these women have EVERY RIGHT to express their opinion. And, by the way, Jolie NEVER denied that there was a rape storyline in the film.
Try checking your facts before defending some overrated celebrity by bashing rape victims.
Or did you think this would get you your 15 minutes?
Why all the secrecy - why no trailers or plot lines other than 1 line neutral descriptions. Why is she so afraid to let people know what this film is really about. It is rated R for rape and sexual violence - 90% or people don't even know what happened in Bosnia and when the rape camps and concentration camps were in the news on a daily basis in 1992 no one cared at all so why should they now. I have a gut feeling that she is going to try to give sympathy to all three sides which will be her downfall but again how the hell would I know since there is nothing to judge this movie except all the rumors. As I have mentioned, just knowing what city this takes place in will give me a good idea of the plot line.
If you want to see what the rape camps were all about just do some research into the cities of Foca and Visegrad and don't forget Omarska - nothing romantic or cinematic about those places -
Thank you for that.
How do you know what the hell the story is about - just because she says it is so? No trailers - no real story line - nothing -
There is a trailer now and the cast will be on 60 minutes this sunday. The movie is getting quite a buzz, as always, Jolie's critics always bark without bite.
The cast are local and they all survived the war but don't facts get in the way of your Jolie hating.
Post a Comment