Somewhere in the world, a filmmaker creates a short documentary that chronicles what he perceives as the excesses of anti-abortion activists. An anti-abortion zealot reacts to the film by killing the filmmaker in broad daylight and stabbing anti-abortion tracts onto his body. How does the Hollywood community react to this atrocity? Would there be angry protests? Candlelight vigils? Outraged letters and columns and articles? Awards named in honor of their fallen comrade? Demands for justice? Calls for protection of artistic freedom? It√?¬Ę√Ę‚??¬¨√Ę‚??¬Ęs a pretty safe bet that there would be all of the above and much more. And all of the anger would be absolutely justified.
So I√?¬Ę√Ę‚??¬¨√Ę‚??¬Ęm trying to understand the nearly universal lack of outrage coming from Hollywood over the brutal murder of Dutch director, Theo van Gogh, who was shot on the morning of November 2, while bicycling through the streets of Amsterdam. The killer then stabbed his chest with one knife and slit his throat with another.
The presumed murderer, a Dutch-born dual Moroccan-Dutch citizen, attached a 5-page note to van Gogh’s body with a knife. In it, he threatened jihad against the West in general, and specifically against five prominent Dutch political figures. Van Gogh√?¬Ę√Ę‚??¬¨√Ę‚??¬Ęs crime? He created a short film highly critical of the treatment of women in Islamic societies. So, again I ask, where is the outrage from Hollywood√?¬Ę√Ę‚??¬¨√Ę‚??¬Ęs creative community? I mean, talk about a violation of the right of free speech!
Perhaps they are afraid that their protests would put them in danger. That, at least, is a defensible position. If I were Michael Moore, I would much rather rail against George W. Bush, who is much less likely to have me killed, than van Gogh√?¬Ę√Ę‚??¬¨√Ę‚??¬Ęs murderer and the threat to creative freedom he brings. Besides, a man of Moore√?¬Ę√Ę‚??¬¨√Ę‚??¬Ęs size would provide a great deal of √?¬Ę√Ę‚??¬¨√?‚??bulletin board√?¬Ę√Ę‚??¬¨ ¬Ě space.
Maybe they think it would be intolerant of them to criticize the murder, because it would put them on the side of someone who criticized a segment of the Arab world. And, after all, we are often reminded that we need to be more tolerant of others, especially if they√?¬Ę√Ę‚??¬¨√Ę‚??¬Ęre not Christians or Jews.
There√?¬Ę√Ę‚??¬¨√Ę‚??¬Ęs another possibility; one that seems crazy on the surface, but does provide an explanation for the silence, and is also in keeping with the political climate in Hollywood. Is it just possible that there are those who are reluctant to criticize an act of terror because that might somehow align them with President Bush, who stubbornly clings to the notion that these are evil people who need to be defeated? Could the level of hatred for this President be so great that some people are against anything he is for, and for anything he is against?
As nutty as it sounds, how else can you explain such a muted reaction to an act that so directly impacts creative people everywhere? Can you conceive of a filmmaker being assassinated because of any other subject matter without seeing a resulting explosion of reaction from his fellow artists in America and around the world?
As I said, it√?¬Ę√Ę‚??¬¨√Ę‚??¬Ęs a nutty-sounding explanation, but we live in nutty times.