Dogma II

[N4H]

I was just surfing around, and I wound up on Kevin Smith's message board.

He was replying to a question concerning the possibility of a sequel to Dogma.

DanteChick20 wrote:
Kevin, the way you ended Dogma left room for a sequal, have you ever considered doing one? Possibly following the LAST scion?


So weird you should ask this, because ever since 9/11, I
have been thinking about a sequel of sorts. I mean, the worst terrorist attack on American soil was religiously bent. In the wake of said attack, the leader of the "Free World" outed himself as pretty damned Christian. In the last election, rather than a quagmire war abroad, the big issue was whether or not gay marriage was moral.

Back when I made "Dogma", I always maintained that another movie about religion wouldn't be forthcoming, as "Dogma" was the product of 28 years of religious and spiritual meditation, and I'd kinda shot my wad on the subject. Now? I think I might have more to say.

And, yes - the Last Scion would be at the epicenter of it. And she'd have to be played by Alanis.

And we'd need a bigger budget - because the entire third act would be the Apocalypse.

Scary thing is this: the film would have to touch on Islam. And unlike the Cathloic League, when those cats don't like what you do, they issue a death warrant on yer ass (see Rushdie). And now that I've got a family, I'm not as free to stir the shit-pot as I was when I was single, back when I made "Dogma". I mean, now I've gotta think about more than my own safety and well-being.

But regardless - yeah, a "Dogma" followup's been swimming around in my head for some time now.

I'd love to see a Dogma sequel.

[goldenboy]

Interesting. An Apocalyptic Kevin Smith film, lol.

The Islam comments are so sad (as in sorrowful, not...necessarily pathetic). Just the idea that self-censorship would be be on his mind. I assume he's aware of Theo Van Gogh as well as Rushdie...and of course the Danish cartoons...

[Black Eye Guy]

Thats cool, I would like to see another Dogma. Sounds interesting. This is probably a stupid question but what is the Last Scion?

[N4H]

The quote is from back in November, so I wonder if the controversy surrounding those cartoons might change things.

I've got a feeling Smith is the kind of guy who might get pissed off by all that.

BEG, does this help?

The angel Metatron (Rickman), the Voice of God, appears to abortion clinic worker Bethany (Fiorentino) and tells her she is the Last Scion, the only living descendant of Mary and Joseph thus the only living relative of Jesus Christ, and gives her the job of stopping them. She is aided by Rufus (Rock), the thirteenth apostle who was left out of the Bible because he was black; Serendipity (Hayek), a muse; and the "prophets" Jay and Silent Bob (Mewes and Smith).


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma_(movie)

[prydain]

I loved Dogma. Even though it kinda made fun of religion and everything. Oh well, I'm sure God has a sense of humor.

Whatever other religion this guy wants to tear into, let 'em. It'll be GREAT. :D

[teentitan]

As much as Smith likes to stir the shit pot I just can't see him pissed off enough over cartoons to stir that pot up.
But a Dogma II would be great no doubt.

[N4H]

You see here's the thing about that Muslim cartoon controversy. Those cartoons aren't actually aimed at Mohamed, or the religion of Islam. They point out a wrong in which a religion has been hijacked by extremists to do crappy things to people. The extremists then tell us don't call us terrorists, or we'll terrorize you.

Thinking people don't like that. Those protests will have the exact opposite effect to what the extremists are trying to accomplish. More people are going to dis Mohammed, not less. I could see Kevin Smith getting on board that bus.

My favourite of those cartoons is the one where suicide bombers are arriving at the gates of heaven. Mohamed comes running up to them and cries out, "No! Go back! You can't come in. We've run out of virgins."

(Cause you know if you're a suicide bomber, and you blow yourself up in a restaurant, you're supposed to get 19 virgins on your arrival to heaven. Honest to Allah. They believe that.)

[prydain]

What cartoons are you guys talking about?

[N4H]

Here try these -

Muslim Cartoon Protest (http://news.google.ca/news?q=muslim+cartoons&hl=en&hs=2co&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&sa=N&tab=nn&oi=newsr)

[prydain]

Okie dokie.

[goldenboy]

Wiki has a good summary of the cartoon hullaballoo:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons

Some of the cartoons were intentionally insulting and being critical of Islam, as it's practiced by many today. Some were totally innocuous portraits. Whether some were actually being critical of the historical Mohammed and the religion he founded is, debatable—for a couple of them. But that's completely irrelevant to the larger point.

http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/jyllands-posten_cartoons/

As I understand it, the original point of the publication in Jyllands-Posten was essentially to test free speech in modern Denmark. I guess you could argue this was dumb or gratuitous. I don't think so. A writer couldn't get any brave illustrators for a book about Mohammed, so the paper asked for artist submissions. The free speech rights of a person living in a western democracy shouldn't be legally limited by Sharia law or hurt feelings or somebody's interpretation of blasphemy, IMO. Otherwise, the democratic West is screwed, long term.

There was anger and protesting among some Danish muslims, but no serious violence, as far as I know. All the murder and mayhem is actually outside of Europe—in Pakistan, Syria, etc. People were riled up there by radical imams, months after the original publication. Ideological, political, religious ideas—there's no distinction in the minds of some.

[N4H]

Yeah, and plus Kevin Smith can't make Dogma II, so that tells me this whole idea of censorship by terror is just totally wrong.

Want a better idea of what that Mohammed comic controversy was all about Prydain? Check this cartoon out.

http://www.zipperfish.net/free/yaafm12.php

Warning: There's foul language - tons of it.

[goldenboy]

OK, this thread has gotten maybe a little off-topic, but...

Muslims ask French to cancel 1741 play by Voltaire

..."Help us Voltaire. They've gone mad," read a headline last month in France Soir, a daily newspaper.

Editors in France, Germany and elsewhere have explained their decision to reprint the drawings by pointing to principles enshrined in a statement often attributed to Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Voltaire said something similar, but the phrase was coined in 1906 by a biographer of Voltaire to sum up the French writer's views.

"Fanaticism," the play that stirred the ruckus in Saint-Genis-Pouilly, portrays Muhammad as a ruthless tyrant bent on conquest. Its main theme is the use of religion to promote and mask political ambition.

For Voltaire's Muslim critics, the play reveals a centuries-old Western distortion of Islam. For his fans, it represents a manifesto for liberty and reason and should be read not so much as an attack on Islam but as a coded assault on the religious dogmas that have stained European history with bloody conflict.

When Voltaire wrote the play in 1741, Roman Catholic clergymen denounced it as a thinly veiled anti-Christian tract. Their protests forced the cancellation of a staging in Paris after three performances -- and hardened Voltaire's distaste for religion. Asked on his deathbed by a priest to renounce Satan, he quipped: "This is not the time to be making enemies."

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06065/666058.stm

[N4H]

I'm not sure that is off-topic. It's what I was saying. Rather than strengthen the censorship of critique of the moslem religion, those cartoon protests, have created an environment where more people want to talk about it. In this environment Kevin Smith may feel more comfortable coming out with a Dogma II.

Also here's that word again, and it's relevant -

should be read not so much as an attack on Islam but as a coded assault on the religious dogmas that have stained European history with bloody conflict.

[goldenboy]

Yeah, I think that's right N4H. More speech, the better. Discussion is great, though some don't want discussion. And I think a related issue for Europe in particular right now is this kinda thing:

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=lifeAndLeisureNews&storyid=2006-03-07T131434Z_01_L16289504_RTRUKOC_0_US-RELIGION-DUTCH-BURQA.xml&rpc=22

One can understand the intent, but might it backfire? Alienate unassimilated European Muslims even further, insure that even more Muslim women will be locked away indoors? I dunno...

We need a Dogma II! Does Smith have the balls to give it a go? I think Hollywood has left so many current events unexplored. TV is leading the way in many ways, not movies. Well, not Hollywood movies anyway...

[N4H]

That article is interesting. It explains something other than just the "ban the burqa" thing.

I'm guessing now there was considerable tension between moslem immigrants, and natives in countries like Holland and Denmark before the cartoon controversy. That might explain why the publisher decided to challenge what he saw as censorship on Muslim critique, by calling for the cartoons in the first place.

[goldenboy]

This sounds like an interesting film.

The Bamiyan Buddhas in Afghanistan were destroyed by the Taliban with the help of Pakistani and Saudi engineers.

According to an account published here on Saturday, a local Afghan told the makers of a Swiss documentary on the giant statues which had stood there, carved in the side of a mountain for hundreds of years, had been destroyed by engineers from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. The dynamiting of the statues took place in March 2001. Swiss documentary filmmaker Christian Frei, who has made several documentaries that have won praise at various international film festivals, shot ‘The Giant Buddhas’ in Afghanistan. The film is due to be shown at the National Gallery of Art in Washington on 26 March.

The Taliban went ahead with the destruction of the giant statues, revered for centuries, because they considered them “offensive to Islam”. They ignored appeals from around the world, including UNESCO and an appeal from the then Government of Pakistan, made, it would appear now, more “for the record” than any serious intent to stop the Islamist zealots from destroying what the rest of the world considered mankind’s heritage.

Taliban minister of information Qudratullah Jamal said in a statement later, “The destruction work is not as easy as people would think. You can’t knock down the statues by dynamite or shelling as both of them have been carved in a cliff. They are firmly attached to the mountain.”

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006%5C03%5C19%5Cstory_19-3-2006_pg7_38

Official site:
http://www.giant-buddhas.com/en/synopsis/

[N4H]

I know man. It's like...what can you say. It's like...some people's children...

[goldenboy]

These are private businesses, they can do whatever the hell they want. But this just makes me a little sick:

Borders and Waldenbooks stores will not stock the April-May issue of Free Inquiry magazine because it contains cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad that provoked deadly protests among Muslims in several countries.

"For us, the safety and security of our customers and employees is a top priority, and we believe that carrying this issue could challenge that priority," Borders Group Inc. spokeswoman Beth Bingham said Wednesday.

The magazine, published by the Council for Secular Humanism in suburban Amherst, includes four of the drawings that originally appeared in a Danish newspaper in September, including one depicting Muhammad wearing a bomb-shaped turban with a lit fuse.

Islamic tradition bars depiction of Muhammad to prevent idol worship, which is strictly prohibited.

"What is at stake is the precious right of freedom of expression," said Paul Kurtz, editor-in-chief of Free Inquiry. "Cartoons often provide an important form of political satire ... To refuse to distribute a publication because of fear of vigilante violence is to undermine freedom of press — so vital for our democracy."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2006/03/29/national/a163611S00.DTL

I mean, you can go to Borders and buy a copy of Mein Kampf, and rightfully so. Yes indeed, free inquiry...

[N4H]

Plus it's all political BS when they say there's something in those cartoons uniquely offensive to Islam. South Park did cartoons of Mohammed pre-dating those Danish ones, yet we don't hear about those ones even though they reached tons more people. Why?

Hey, Goldenboy did you check out that cartoon at Zipperfish posted above. If not, you should, I think you'll get it.

[goldenboy]

I saw about a minute of the Zipperfish piece, yup. But I'll check out the rest. it was making me think of South Park. And the Onion.

Some of those same Mohammed cartoons appreared in an Egyptian paper last year, with nary a peep. As far as the violence in Pakistan...most of what I've read suggests that much of it was calculated attempts at rabble rousing for the sake of power consolidation. A local, politcal issue. Get people organized, focused on a hated "other".

It's just fascinating and appalling to follow this story as it mutates...editors of student papers in the States have been canned for reprinting them. I mean, you could develop an argument that virtually every political cartoon printed is "offensive speech". It's gonna be offensive to someone. So who's contempt and hatred is acceptable and whose isn't? Write a letter to the editor! lol. This is a political controversy because Islam is inherently political. Christianity used to be much more so...

[goldenboy]

This piece manages to touch on angry Muslims, angry Catholics and angry Scientologists (and angry atheists? Hmm. What are Matt and Trey? No idea...)

Network censors cartoon

South Park creators wanted to show Islamic prophet Muhammad
View Larger Image

South Park is still creating controversy. Banned by Comedy Central from showing an image of the Islamic prophet Muhammad, the creators of South Park skewered their own network for hypocrisy in the cartoon's most recent episode.

The comedy — in an episode aired during Holy Week for Christians — instead featured an image of Jesus Christ defecating on President Bush and the American flag.

In an elaborately constructed two-part episode of their Peabody Award-winning cartoon, South Park creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker intended to comment on the controversy created by a Danish newspaper's publishing of caricatures of Muhammad. Muslims consider any physical representation of their prophet to be blasphemous.

When the cartoons were reprinted in newspapers worldwide in January and February, it sparked a wave of protests primarily in Islamic countries.

Parker and Stone were angered when told by U.S. network Comedy Central several weeks ago that they could not run an image of Muhammad, according to a person close to the show.

Comedy Central said in a statement issued Thursday: "In light of recent world events, we feel we made the right decision." Its executives would not comment further.

As is often the case with Parker and Stone, they built South Park around the incident. In Wednesday's episode, the character Kyle is shown trying to persuade a Fox network executive to air an uncensored Family Guy even though it had an image of Muhammad.

"Either it's all OK, or none of it is," Kyle said. "Do the right thing."

The executive decides to strike a blow for free speech and agrees to show it. But at the point where Muhammad is to be seen, the screen is filled with the message: "Comedy Central has refused to broadcast an image of Muhammad on their network."

It is followed shortly by the images of Christ, Bush and the flag.

A frequent South Park critic, William Donohue of the anti-defamation group Catholic League, called on Parker and Stone to resign out of principle for being censored.

"The ultimate hypocrite is not Comedy Central — that's their decision not to show the image of Muhammad or not — it's Parker and Stone," he said. "Like little whores, they'll sit there and grab the bucks. They'll sit there and they'll whine and they'll take their shot at Jesus. That's their stock in trade."

Parker and Stone did not immediately respond to a request through a spokesman for comment.

It's the second run-in over religion in a few months for the satirists. Comedy Central pulled a March rerun of a South Park episode that mocked Scientologists. Isaac Hayes, a Scientologist who voiced the Chef character on the show, resigned in protest over the episode.

http://www.canada.com/topics/entertainment/story.html?id=8c7fee51-3f78-45e4-8a7d-a72638df147c&k=39677

[N4H]

Go Matt and Trey.

They should do it the way they want on the sly, and sneak it onto the internet.

[goldenboy]

Hmm. lol. If you scroll down on this site, you may notice something familiar:

http://www.airarabia.com/

I'm thinkin they didn't consult Matt and Trey.

[goldenboy]

I'm catching up on this guy Spengler's online columns right now. Really interesting stuff. Even if you don't share his worldview or whatever, all this demographic info he continually throws out is just fascinating.

Why can't Muslims take a joke?

With stable institutions and material wealth, the secular West evinces a slow decline. Not so the Muslim world, where loss of faith implies sudden deracination and ruin. In the space of a generation, Islam must make an adjustment that Christianity made with great difficulty over half a millennium. Both for theological and social reasons, it is unequipped to do so. Muslims might as well fight over a cartoon now; they have very little to lose.

Throughout the world, literacy erodes traditional society, and the collapse of traditional society leads to declining population growth rates. But in the Muslim world these trends hit like a shock wave. Both the traditional life of Muslims as well as Muslim theology have been frozen in time, such that Muslims are repeating in compressed time trends long at work in the West. The result is devastating.

Most members of religious groups adhere to their beliefs because they were born into a faith and learned no other way to live. Traditional society admits of no heresy or atheism because religion governs the socialization of individuals. Once a traditional people has the opportunity to choose its beliefs, however, the result most often is a sudden fall-off in religious practice. We observe a close statistical relationship between literacy and the percentage of non-religious people in a population in the cross-section of countries.*

Once the literacy rate reaches 90%, the percentage of non-religious jumps into two digits. That is as true for Muslim countries as well as for non-Muslim countries. Because the Muslim literacy rate is so far below the average, though, few Muslim countries have a high proportion of non-religious people...

...The theological problem I have discussed in other locations, most recently in reporting the pope's seminar at Castelgandolfo. Christianity and Judaism have adapted to doubt, the bacillus of modern thought, by inviting doubt to serve as the handmaiden of faith. No better formulation of this can be found than in Benedict XVI's classic Introduction to Christianity. The object of revelation, the believer, becomes a participant in revelation, in dialogue with the Revealer. This great innovation has not prevented the death of traditional, autonomic Christian belief, but it has left an enduring core of Christian faith in the West well inoculated against skepticism. As the pope explained, the eternal, unchanging character of the Koran that the Archangel Gabriel dictated verbatim to Mohammed admits of no doubt. Muslim belief is not dialogue, but submission.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HB07Ak02.html