Even as a late contender for the Dumbest Idea Of The Year Award, producer Barrie Osborne is a lock to win. Apparently, eager to squander the goodwill and loads of cash he earned producing “The Matrix” and the LOTR films, Osborne is ready to bring a $150 million biopic about Muhammad to the big screen.
Osborne, intent on compounding an already bad idea, is working with Qatar-based Alnoor Holdings, who have installed the hugely controversial Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradwi to oversee the shoot. Al-Qaradwi, who is banned from entering both the United States and United Kingdom, has a severe hatred of Jews, saying that the Holocaust was Allah’s way of bringing “divine punishment” upon them. Osborne, who is either ignorant of Al-Qaradwi’s views or is extraordinarily naive, says that he envisions the the film as “an international epic production aimed at bridging cultures. The film will educate people about the true meaning of Islam”. Puh-leeze.
The film, which Osborne hopes to get in front of cameras in 2011, will feature English-speaking, Muslim actors, and to keep in accordance with Islamic law, will not actually depict the prophet on screen. If Osborne can pull this off, the project will be the first biopic in history where the subject is never seen on screen. Good luck to him.
Oddly enough, this isn’t the only film about Muhammad in some stage of development. Producer Oscar Zoghbi (we use that term lightly, his only credits on IMDB come as a crew member on two late ’80s “Halloween” sequels) is working on a remake of the 1976 film “The Message” which starred Anthony Quinn. His remake is called “The Messenger Of Peace” and we’re sure we can safely say it’s currently earning zero interest in Hollywood.
We can’t imagine any major studio committing any kind of money to either of these films, though there is probably plenty of money and interest available in the Islamic world. However, even with funding, we can imagine both moderate-to-hardline Islamic groups and Jewish organizations will be scrutinizing these pictures to the point where, hopefully, the producers will realize what a colossally, horrible idea they are.
And who says no one wants to take a risk in today’s cinematic climate?
i don't understand. what do you posit the aim of the film would be, if not to "educate people about the true meaning of Islam". like, do you think that the goal is to make an anti-Islam film? really, please explain.
The "phu-leeze" was aimed more at the first half of the quote, where Osborne thinks his film is going to be some kind of cultural hug-in. Given who is overseeing the shoot, the production (if it even happens) is going to hugely divisive.
And, no, the film isn't going to accomplish educating people about the religion either.
I think controversy within film is GOOD and one of the great powers of film is to get people to talk about controversial things. It is strange to think that the fact that a film might be (or probably will be) "divisive" is a reason to not proceed.
Islam is the world’s second largest religion after Christianity, so, surely the profit potential in a film of this magnitude certainly isn’t lost on the production team putting this together.
However, as an English-language project? Some will probably be insulted by that! I understand the likely reasons for making it so, but even Mel Gibson recognized the value in authenticity, when he made his "The Passion Of The Christ" in 2004, in Aramaic, Latin, and Hebrew, with subtitles – which became the highest grossing non-English language film, and the most successful R-rated film in the United States of all-time, grossing almost $400 million domestically, despite its paltry $30 million budget!
Why not just make "The Pilgrimage of Mr. Bean?" That way we can be edutained!
I thought showing Muhammad's face or an image of him was not allowed.
Remember the Danish cartoon controversy and riots from a couple years back?