"The people of Afghanistan do not understand that it's only acting or playing a role in a film. They think it has actually happened,"

"In Afghanistan, rape is not acceptable at all."

^^^ quote of the day, already

His suggestion to the film company? "They should take us out of Afghanistan."

Only if they'll take Dane Cook.

regardless of whether they believe actual buggery took place during filming or not, the kid will forever be "the one that got buggered"

Well yeah, that is true. I just have no patience for the hopefully-lost-in-translation "ppl in Afghanistan don't understand that most movies are fictional" thing (esp. considering that a bunch of Afghani ppl worked on this movie and saw/knew that it was fictional).

Also, it seems to me that cutting out the pivotal event of the story doesn't really do much for the movie in terms of narrative consistency.

the hell! they didn't have a problem while they were shooting the scene?

They must be the first people in the history of the world to participate in something and then have second thoughts about it!

well you'd think an issue like that would dawn on them during shooting

There are plenty of things that can seem acceptable when you're in a room doing them with people who seem decent and sensitive, but then maybe get a little overwhelming when it really honestly sinks in that they're about to be shown to thousands upon thousands of people.

Or at least that's what I'm told by some girl with a webcam who looks a bit like Meg White

DrPAOK

He'll have bigger worries when all the troops are pulled out of Afghanistan to go to Iran anyway.

The previous 6 posts minus the one from Oilyrags are a case study in why someone should really consider reading an article before commenting on it.

To wit:

Ahmad Khan was paid $10,000 to portray Hassan -- a hefty sum in Afghanistan, where teachers earn only about $70 per month. But the boy with an endearing, crooked smile said he would never have taken the role had he known Hassan is raped. The family said they found out about the scene only days before it was shot.

"They didn't give me the script. They didn't give me the story of 'The Kite Runner.' If I knew about the story, I wouldn't have participated as an actor in this film," he told the AP.

The father and son, backed by other Afghans on the set's location in China, argued with the filmmakers, and the boy refused to act out the scene.

Mahmidzada said the director told him: "'The film will be a mess without this part.' "

"But I told him 'I'm not thinking about your film. I'm thinking about myself,' " he said. "We are Afghan, and this is not acceptable to us at all."

When the filmmakers wanted his son to take off his pants for the shooting, Mahmidzada refused to let him do it. The scene was instead shot with Ahmad Khan wearing his pants.

The Oilyrags post is a case study in why somebody should look into what nations troops are holding Afghanistan together before commenting on it.

xpost

well that was way more dickish sounding than i'd intended.

Don't worry about it. I got thick skin and anyway, you're completely right. That post was very poorly researched.

i'd read the thing but somehow missed the bit about the argument on set. i'm lousy at reading, i know.

xpost - I have a friend serving in the cndn forces in kandahar - and it's just sort of a sensitive spot for me. not only that there seems to be very little international appreciation for what we're doing there - but that there's alot of ignorance here at home about it too.

lol Thermo (not at yr friend, at the rejoinder to my snark)

xpost I read the article perfectly well, Dan -- the objection is mentioned in the very first graph. The point remains that objections that are overcome or cajoled through in the first instance (they did get the scene shot) can tip over into refusal after the fact.

seems to me the issue at heart is the father being coerced into letting his kid be pretend raped on set, arguing that at least the kid gets to have pants on, and then deciding he doesn't want any of it shown in his famously conservative country

I don't dispute any of that.

I do dispute the "people won't understand that it wasn't real" argument as that seems to me to be completely bonkers (as I stated before, I really hope that is a mistranslation because, as it stands, it makes no sense).

it's dependent on this super-condescending lol dumb-afghani mindset, isn't it?

i heard they duck under their seats when a train zooms across screen

it's dependent on this super-condescending lol dumb-afghani mindset, isn't it?

Yes, and since it came from the main person protesting the scene I can't possibly believe he meant to say that in the manner it is printed in the article. Heave Ho's point is, to me, the more understandable restatement of the sentiment I think he was going for.

The weird translation hypothesis is perhaps reinforced by the statement being in present tense!

I dunno, does anyone want to talk about like the importance of symbolism/icons/etc to a pre- or extra-literate group? You know, the way people are always talking about the sign being as good as the object or idea to medieval peasants in morality plays etc et?

Not that Afghans are NOT literate jesus christ before anyone freaks out...but maybe some groups aren't as far from that way of thinking as others?

PS Even kind of meaning it as stated isn't as condescending as we're making out here: it's not like there aren't media-soaked Americans whose behavior suggests a tenuous differentiation between, say, soap actors and the characters they play

lol that is just as condescending just to like stupid americans who watch soap operas?

out of deference to the kid, wouldn't it perhaps be possible to offer an edited version of the film in Afghanistan?

Like, let's not pretend that international distribution doesn't do this frequently, anyway.

Oh, it didn't strike me as condescending at first, I just assumed the stigma of male-on-male rape would be so great there given cultural/religious standards that it was too grave a slur to even suggest -- and I thought the father's words were just glossing over that stigma, since it would offend Greater Western Mores about homosexuality, victimhood, blah blah blah.

I think if you pushed the envelope enough you could make a fictional movie that offends a lot of people in the US. At a certain point, the "it's only art/fiction" barrier breaks down and then "they don't it's just a movie" becomes "it doesn't matter that it's just a movie".

I mean don't tell me you don't wonder what happens to people who do, like, laxative ads.

Haha, once again: not like there aren't plenty of Americans who object to film depiction of negative or immoral acts, even when they're very firmly depicted as negative and awful -- in which sense this kid is kinda the Dakota Fanning of Afghanistan

There is a lingering sense that picturing something is (a) glamorizing it as a topic, and (b) in some way recreating it or increasing its presence in the world

Nabisco, do you REALLY think that most Americans don't understand that the events on soap operas are fictional? There is a difference between thinking "[character x] is like this, so [actor who plays character x] must also be like that," which is something that practically everyone who has ever seen a movie, play or television show has done, and "I saw a woman get possessed by The Desecrator on 'Days Of Our Lives'! That poor girl! I should call my pastor and send him to exorcize her," which is the behavior flat-out stated in the excerpted quote that is the thread title.

Laurel's point rings a hell of a lot truer than what you just said, although I still find it difficult to put myself into a mindset where Hollywood imagery is taken as a literal interpretation of anything. I know that this is largely because I have grown up with these images all my life and know they aren't real and I have no comparable experience with Afghani culture to say whether they undergo anything approaching the same level of media bombardment.

(xpost: There is also a gigantic difference between "You should not show this because things like this should never be seen by anyone" and "You should not show this because people will think it actually happened to my son". I still think this is mistranslated.)

maybe he's just concerned that people will not understand that the sexual aspects were faked for the scene? like people will understand that it's just the telling of a story, but not understand the technicalities of the portrayal. if people think the sex is actually happening, the fact that it's a dramatization is irrelevant to them?

or... judging by the last line in the article, maybe they just want an excuse to move?

Okay that I actually buy! I never assume sex is real in movies, usually because they make such a huge deal about it when it is ("Shortbus", "The Brown Bunny").

Good lord, Dan, where did I say MOST Americans?

My only point was that it wouldn't necessarily be any grand slur against the Afghan intelligence to be concerned about your kid being associated with the role he played -- because similar things do happen even in more media-steeped places like the US.

I'm not disagreeing about the tone or context or thrust of that quote probably not being precisely how they come off here!

I think if you pushed the envelope enough you could make a fictional movie that offends a lot of people in the US.

I don't know if its a gigantic difference, actors definitely have a residual impression left upon them from the roles they've played in the eyes of the public. case in point: if i ever met morgan freeman, I would assume he is wise and magical.

also, nabisco,

isn't your a/b point a bit tangential? i mean, you're right abt. the Dakota Fanning comparison: i expect the rape scene will generate "controversy" and probably a boycott or two and a lot of excited hand-waving. probably to an equal extent in Afghanistan (or, as laurel suggests, to a greater extent because of literacy concerns). but the issue at hand isn't directly the wider cultural perception of the rape scene and its, err, contended authenticity -- it's the treatment of the actor / family by the producers.

(xpost to massive bnw lolz) You didn't; however, the father DID imply most Afghanis in the quote I excerpted. In order for the comparison to ring true, there should be some level of equivalence; your point doesn't match the assertion about the Afghani people unless it extends to most Americans who watch soap operas. That was part of my point behind my refutation of your point.

Point point point point point gah I've ruined that word for myself now.

@ BNW

Now that I think about it - remember that big fiasco when Richard Gere kissed Shilpa Shetty? There was all sorts of outrage in India over what was considered, over here, to be relatively harmless. I mean - we just can really pretend to understand the mindset of such things over in that part of the world. They weren't even aloud music in Afghanistan under the Talaban - then we show up and start pretend raping their kids! Who knows what's goign through their minds!

*going

if dakota fanning can do it, this little homo can. tell him to grow a pair.

well, i couldn't resist:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v622/dysign/ilx/awhell.jpg

lololol

like you weren't think it too!