Controversial filmmaker pays with his life

[DavidSloan]

Fatal Detraction

A provocative, and offensive, filmmaker and columnist attacks Islam and pays with his life.

 

BY LEON DE WINTER

Friday, November 5, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST

 

AMSTERDAM--It was only two years ago that an animal-rights extremist assassinated the populist Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn, explaining later in court that he did so, in part, to stop Fortuyn from using Muslim immigrants as "scapegoats." Now the Netherlands is once again in shock. On Tuesday, the filmmaker and newspaper columnist Theo van Gogh--a distant descendant of the artist Vincent--was murdered, allegedly by a Muslim immigrant (now in police custody). On Wednesday the police arrested eight Islamic radicals in connection with the slaying. The Netherlands prides itself on being a liberal and tolerant country. What is going on?

 

Like Mr. Fortuyn, whom he admired, Mr. Van Gogh was a radical libertarian, a champion of free speech who refused to be constrained by taboos or social codes. I know from personal experience what it felt like to be the target of his invective.

 

Mr. Van Gogh's pen could be vulgar and radical, and he managed to offend me more than once. In 1984, after I directed a feature film called "Frontiers," about a Dutch journalist who goes abroad to interview a terrorist and discovers his own violent side, Mr. Van Gogh accused me of "selling out my Jewish identity," although there was not a single Jewish character in the picture. Writing elsewhere about Jewish writers or filmmakers, he made Holocaust-tinged jokes like: "Hey, it smells like caramel today--well then, they must be burning the diabetic Jews." Such attacks went on for almost 20 years. (Mr. Van Gogh was 47 when he died.)

 

To be clear: Mr. Van Gogh did not limit himself to Jewish topics. He attacked Christian values and symbols as well. Theodor Holman, another Dutch columnist, once wrote that "every Christian is a criminal," and a storm of controversy broke out. Mr. Van Gogh came to his defense by writing that people offended by those words were only "the fan club of that rotting fish in Nazareth." After viewing Mel Gibson's recent film, Mr. Van Gogh remarked in the daily Metro: "I just went to see 'The Passion of the Christ,' a film as bad as an LSD trip which shows once again that also in the sewers of Christianity collective daftness just leads to mud."

 

After the death of Mr. Fortuyn, who warned that Holland's open culture would clash with its growing Muslim community, Mr. Van Gogh turned his attention to Islam, spewing invective in his columns and earning many enemies. Many people went out of their way to avoid him, including me.

 

Even so, Mr. Van Gogh remained a member of the artistic establishment. He worked for the leading Dutch television companies, for newspapers and magazines. In August he caused a sensation by collaborating with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somali who fled to Holland 10 years ago and who eventually won a seat in Parliament. Two years ago, Ms. Hirsi Ali declared that she no longer considered herself a Muslim. Death threats followed, and she was given round-the-clock protection by the Dutch secret service. Certain segments of the public hailed her as the true heir of Mr. Fortuyn. She certainly has a charismatic persona: She is black, beautiful and elegant--and knows Islam inside-out.

 

It was the film that Mr. Van Gogh and Ms. Hirsi Ali made, "Submission"--the title is a literal translation of the Arabic word "Islam"--that appears to have led to Van Gogh's murder. In his 20-minute movie, based on Ms. Hirsi Ali's script and screened on television in August, Mr. Van Gogh portrayed written passages from the Koran on partially clothed female bodies to accentuate the texts' hostility to women. The intention, of course, was to provoke a discussion among female Muslims.

 

And provocative the film was, but in the context of Holland's often brazen filmmaking culture it was reasonably cautious and subtle. In fact, it led me for the first time to write something positive about Mr. Van Gogh. I thought the negative reaction to "Submission" was unfair. In Elsevier magazine I wrote that the "people who are offended by this film have a big problem." I noted that it did not openly show naked women--as so many critics had claimed--and that it was rather modest in its style, subdued and carefully made.

 

In his own statements, Mr. Van Gogh made no concessions to the sensibilities of Holland's Muslim immigrants. He was an artiste provocateur--troublesome, offensive and hyperbolic but, it should be said, accepted within the wide boundaries of Dutch culture.

 

But not by everyone. On Tuesday, a 26-year-old observant Muslim named Mohammed B. (officials are withholding his family name) decided to act, unable to accept that unbelievers like Mr. Van Gogh might be led to criticize or ridicule Islam. The son of immigrants who had found work, prosperity and freedom in the Netherlands, he had a history of violence and, it now appears, was allied with a group of radical Muslims.

 

Having shot Mr. Van Gogh while the filmmaker was riding his bicycle, and clutching a knife in both hands, Mohammed B. tried to cut off Van Gogh's head--"as if he were slicing bread," as one eyewitness related. For the deed, he had dressed himself in traditional Moroccan garb and, it seems, attempted to ritually slaughter the infidel, like an animal. He stuck a note on Van Gogh's chest with a knife.

 

The minister of justice announced yesterday that the note was a letter addressed to Ms. Hirsi Ali, threatening her and filled with threats and anti-Semitic remarks. The letter, he noted, "shows an extreme religious ideology; it says that its enemies should fear for their lives." The minister of the interior, for his part, remarked that the letter was "a direct attack on the Dutch democratic system."

 

And so it seems to be. In a strange and appalling way, Mohammed B. did to Mr. Van Gogh what Mr. Van Gogh did to the actresses and extras in "Submission"--the essential difference being that the actresses could wash the words away and leave the studio without a care, while the words on Mr. Van Gogh were pinned by his murderer to his dead flesh.

 

This difference highlights what many in the Netherlands see as an enormous problem with the fundamentalist parts of Arab-Islamic cultures: an inability to view the world according to abstract principles, to transcend the literally militant passages of sacred texts. To some, the Koran to this day offers no prospect of a free interpretation, or a tolerant one, that can exist alongside the free speech of a liberal society.

 

In the heyday of their multicultural utopia, the Dutch political and intellectual elites believed that radical Muslims and radical libertarians could exist peacefully together in the same society. In recent years it has become clear that such a belief was an illusion, although the politically correct media long tried to avoid the whole subject.

 

Mr. Fortuyn, in his outspoken political career, broke the taboos surrounding the problems of immigration and paid with his life. Mr. Van Gogh paid the same price for a provocation that, had it been directed at Christianity rather than Islam, would have hardly raised an eyebrow.

 

Mr. de Winter is a Dutch novelist and adjunct fellow at the Hudson Institute.

[GeorgeSelinsky]

This is a great tragedy and should be a cause of alarm, outrage, and protest amidst all makers of film, studio and independent. If our society tolerates such acts of violence against any artist who offends someone else's point of view, we are sending a message to the lunatics of this world that their intimidation is a viable response. We are, in effect, allowing the most cruel and despicable form of censorship to take place - censor not only the idea, but the arist for eternity, punishing him or her with the death sentence! Not only the writer, not only the filmmaker can be endangered, but also those many people who take part in realizing this vision, who play a crucial role in putting across the message with their own creativity.

 

I salute all filmmakers and their teams who have the bravery to make strong films, films that enrage repressive fanatics and militants throughout the world. I pray that every government security agency in their battle for a safer society ensures the safety of those artistic soldiers who are fighting the war on terror and repression with their cameras.

 

- G.

[DavidSloan]

Amen George, amen!

[Matt Pacini]

This was an outrageous act, highlighted even more, in my opinion, by the deafening silence in the film community over it.

 

I hate to get political, but if this had been say, white people killing a black filmmaker, or whatever, this would be the talk of the town, with all the Hollywood elite crying out about how it was a sign of a broader problem, etc. (which I would agree with).

 

But to acknowledge this crime for what it really is, is to acknowledge that Muslim extremism in the world, is really a terrible, murderous cancer on civilization, and not just "them getting their just revenge on the much-deserving west", which has been the rhetoric we've all been hearing since 9/11/01 as an excuse for their actions.

It's a bit tough to use that excuse now.

What has the Netherlands done to piss off these people?

 

It's even more ironic how there is no outrage in the Hollywood community over the murder, considering the film is about the terrible abuse that some Muslim women put up with, and it's written by a Muslim woman who must now hide out to keep from being murdered.

 

It seems that most filmmakers here, are more upset at the MPAA for harshly rating films with sexual content, than they are at having a filmmaker brutally murdered, with their killer clearly saying that they killed them because of the statement their film was making.

How is THAT for censorship?

 

Matt Pacini

Edited November 29, 2004 by Matt Pacini

[David Mullen ASC]

I hate to get political, but if this had been say, white people killing a black filmmaker, or whatever, this would be the talk of the town, with all the Hollywood elite crying out about how it was a sign of a broader problem, etc. (which I would agree with).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I hate posts that start like that. I assume you are talking about us "liberal elites" again? Yes, I never care about white people getting murdered, only minorities, absolutely. Any more stereotypes about the left you wish to throw at us?

 

Some guy is shot and has his throat slashed by a religious psychopath in another country and you use it as an excuse to bash Hollywood liberals -- and somehow we're the insensitive ones? Jeez... gimme a break. It is all black & white for you? Someone doesn't support a war in Iraq therefore must approve of innocent people getting murdered by terrorists? It's that simplistic? No complex views of life on this planet allowed? The "you're either for us or against us" mentality?

 

So if some white religious nutcase in Holland murdered a Muslim filmmaker, liberal Hollywood filmmakers would be marching in protest?

 

Personally, I'm afraid of any religious fanatics, Muslim or Christian or Jewish... But that doesn't make me afraid of ordinary Muslims, Christians, or Jews. And if you think terrorism is only committed by Muslim extremists, you're wrong. In our own country, we had the KKK (we still have them, actually. And what race and religion was the guy who bombed the Federal Building in Oklahoma?)

 

I don't even get the point of your post. The Hollywood Elite needs to get up off their arses and start stirring up anti-Muslim sentiment in this country? Or that protests against censorship are not allowed because we should feel lucky that the MPAA doesn't kill people? Or we should be upset that the MPAA isn't doing anything about the killing in Holland? I can't complain about anything to any agency, group, or government body until I first complain about the killing in Holland?

[DavidSloan]

@David: I think the point Matt is making, which is partially grounded in truth, I believe, is that liberals tend to be very choosy about which human rights abuses they protest and turn a blind eye to others. It's very easy to find liberals, in the states, that are up in arms about George Bush and the present administration, but you would be hard pressed to find those same people there to protest human rights abuses in Syria, or Cuba, for example. Many liberals seem to be very sympathetic with Totalitarian regimes, and tend to only blame the west for problems that exist in the world. Basically it seems as if in any conflict that takes place between colored people and westerners the westerners are the always the ones who are doing the wrong, by default.

 

I don't classify myself as a liberal or conservative, both have their pros and cons. I just wanted to post this article because I feel it is important, and also peculiar as to why no one is saying anything about Theo Van Gogh's death?

[GeorgeSelinsky]

Many liberals seem to be very sympathetic with Totalitarian regimes, and tend to only blame the west for problems that exist in the world. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Very true. As a person of Russian descent I can tell you that many American liberals sympathised with Stalin and his regime. They turned a blind eye to the millions of Russians and other peoples of the USSR who were sitting in concentration camps. Some didn't know, but some did but didn't want anyone else to know, so they knowingly lied. There are many cases of repression that certain so called liberals overlook and ignore. I've seen and heard it much too often, and it makes me very upset. I can't get over the way everyone is so upset over Bush's war in Iraq but thinks that Clinton's bombing of civilian targets in Serbia and Montenegro (resulting in a casualty of 3000 people) was completely justifiable (all while completely ignoring the ethnic cleansing of Serbs in Kosovo, Kraijna, and other regions of Bosnia by Islamic and Catholic paramilitaries). If it didn't make TV then it never happened I guess...

 

Personally I don't agree with Van Gough's ideology, as a matter of fact I find some of his statements deplorable. But what is sad is the reason why he died and who he died from. As artists we're all, to a degree, in the same boat, and we have to be conscious of what is going on around us. That particularly concerns alarming trends such as these. We have to do everything possible to make sure the world knows that this trend is unacceptable.

 

- G.

Edited November 30, 2004 by GeorgeSelinsky

[David Mullen ASC]

I just don't see the need to use his tragedy to take cheap pot shots at liberals.

 

What exactly do you want me to say about his death anyway? What is it you are wanting to hear?

 

It was terrible, awful, and whoever did it should be punished. A crime was committed in the name of religion. Religious extremism leading to terrorism is one of the worst problems of our day. But why exactly do I have to say the obvious? Don't we all agree that it was an awful crime???

 

I'm just getting tired that the only social injustices that seem to get Matt excited are ones perpetrated on white men. "Why aren't more people outraged? It's because he was white! Admit it!" This is on the same lines of his "Sophie Coppola got good reviews only because she was a woman" line of thinking. I don't come to this site to read mindlessly regurgitated Rush Limbaugh-esque garbage. He should lay off the talk radio and Fox News for a little while...

 

To say something like "why aren't the Hollywood Elite getting more upset? I bet if the guy were Muslim, they would!" is pretty much a no-way-to-win argument. I can't describe a method or scenario that would adequately convince a conservative that the liberal elite cares "enough" about Van Gogh's murder, unless Ben Affleck poured gasoline on himself and lit a match in protest. But even that would not be enough.

 

So historically, liberals were sometimes on the wrong side of an issue, really??? Gosh, I had no idea. Certainly conservatives have always been on the RIGHT side of issues like slavery, child labor, minority voting rights, the war in Vietnam, etc.

 

Certainly we have to be upset about Van Gogh's murder -- but this is not a "new" trend. Religious fanatics have been killing those that they think are heretical since religion was invented. Remember that guy named Jesus?

[Keith Mottram]

unless Ben Affleck poured gasoline on himself and lit a match in protest. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

i had a dream about this once.......

[GeorgeSelinsky]

I can't describe a method or scenario that would adequately convince a conservative that the liberal elite cares "enough" about Van Gogh's murder, unless Ben Affleck poured gasoline on himself and lit a match in protest.  But even that would not be enough.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, there are certain issues that people make awareness campaigns out of, i.e. wearing certain ribbons, holding vigils, etc. These things are important because the next time a filmmaker or writer recieves a death threat, authorities might be more pressured to act - nobody wants their career ruined by a protest of high profile artists.

 

Van Gough was obviously NOT a Christian fundamentalist, as you can see by his comments. He was most likely an atheist. Yet the big faces in our entertainment industry didn't seem to catch on to what this murder actually symbolizes.

 

I honestly think that the reason this has not gotten more public attention is because many of these high profile people are chicken to do any open protest campaigns, wear ribbons, etc. Everyone knows the zeal with which these crazy fundamentalists kill, and nobody wants to be caught amidst another Beslan. They feel by not raising the issue, it won't rustle any feathers and it will go away. They won't touch upon these subjects in their scripts for the same reason. We thus have a situation called "self censorship"

 

Yet even in a heavily mob controlled town in Italy, people had the courage to hang out white sheets to protest a mob murder of a politician (name escapes me at the moment). Sadly I haven't seen or heard of any Ben Afflecks wearing any ribbons or making any public statements of outrage.

 

There ARE people out there who have access to media channels and can afford to create an awareness campaign. It shouldn't be up to people like me, at the bottom of the ladder. These artists who've made their way to the top are all the more likely to become targets in the future themselves - and yes, Hollywood has recieved its share of death threats before. If we raise awareness, we will make people even more aware of the dangers of such violent censorship and encourage authorities to take a more active role in preventing such things from happening in the future.

 

- G.

Edited November 30, 2004 by GeorgeSelinsky

[Alberto Larios-Saavedra]

 

 

But to acknowledge this crime for what it really is, is to acknowledge that Muslim extremism in the world, is really a terrible, murderous cancer on civilization, and not just "them getting their just revenge on the much-deserving west", which has been the rhetoric we've all been hearing since 9/11/01 as an excuse for their actions.

It's a bit tough to use that excuse now.

What has the Netherlands done to piss off these people?

 

 

I think the one using the 9/11 rhetoric as an excuse to bring terror and death to over 100,000 thousand people in the Middle East is this other right-wing Christian fanatic who occupies the White House. I have yet to hear the "conservative" crowd to express outrage at so many innocent lives lost, which leads me to question the term, conservative of what? Not human values for sure.

As one South American writer would put it, "When you have one side fighting and claiming God to be on their side, and with the other claiming that Ala is on theirs, we all in the middle will lose."

Sad but true.

 

Al