Hypersensitive Interest Groups Schooled By Actual Facts
Following an Islamic civil rights group’s call for a name change of Alan Ball’s upcoming Towelhead, Warner Bros.’ initial response could be paraphrased as something like “ummm…no.”
Yesterday, Alicia Erian, the Arab-American author of the source novel defended the title.
“As an Arab-American woman, I am of course aware that the title of my book is an ethnic slur. Indeed, I selected the title to highlight one of the novel’s major themes: racism. In the tradition of Dick Gregory’s autobiography Nigger, the Jewish magazine Heeb, or the feminist magazine Bitch, the title is rude and shocking, but it is not gratuitous. Besides the fact that the main character must endure taunting about her ethnicity (including being called a towelhead), so much of the novel’s plot is fueled by the characters’ attitudes toward race.”
Yeah, so shut up.
David Poland has all of Erian’s statement, plus statements from Alan Ball, Warner Independent Pictures and a joint statement from a bunch of Ph.D types.
All of this is not to say that racism and bigotry do not exist, but LiC’s official position is that offended groups should have their facts straight before they start calling for name changes or boycotts or protests. A strong light should always be shone on the ills that face our society, but overreacting unnecessarily does the cause more harm than good.
Via: Cinematical
Filed under: Opinion
Tags: Alan Ball, Alicia Erian, Towelhead
Related Posts: - Who Owns ‘Watchmen’?
- This just in: ‘Towelhead’ is derogatory
- Lights Out at Warner Specialty Units
- The Watercooler: 9/8/08
- Review: Towelhead (2008) * 1/2
I think in this case, as with Tropic Thunder, all the parties involved mean well, but it’s easy to think that the other parties don’t. This Islamic civil rights group slamming Towelhead just didn’t understand that the book/movie is just a different kind of protest.
It’s happening again…reading about this controversy is causing my knee to jerk spasmodically. Can’t explain it…must…get…angry…for no good reason.
Ow joel, stop kicking me.
I agree JB and in this case I’ll I’m saying is that the offended parties should’ve looked into what they were talking about. If they had, they could’ve still used it as an opportunity for dialogue (as I’m sure the filmmakers intended) but they would’ve looked 47% less silly.
Damn people are touchy these days.