Cancel culture strikes again

I have been intermittently watching GB News with interest.

It varies from entertaining and informative to excruciatingly tedious.

Part of the problem is that there is no proper separation of roles
between management, interviewer, presenter and contributor.
 
Has it really been a year since this thread was active? Seriously, my sense of time is screwed.

Cineworld cancels The Lady of Heaven film screenings after protests

Cineworld has cancelled all UK screenings of a film about the daughter of the Prophet Muhammad, after it prompted protests outside some cinemas.

The cinema chain said it made the decision "to ensure the safety of our staff and customers".

More than 120,000 people have signed a petition for The Lady of Heaven film to be pulled from UK cinemas.

The Bolton Council of Mosques called the film "blasphemous" and sectarian.

But a House of Lords peer called the decision "disastrous for the arts [and] dangerous for free speech".
I am a bit torn. On the one hand it is people power working as intended, and reducing the impact of offensive media. On the other hand if there are credable threats of violence that is a whole different thing.
 
Has it really been a year since this thread was active? Seriously, my sense of time is screwed.

Cineworld cancels The Lady of Heaven film screenings after protests

Cineworld has cancelled all UK screenings of a film about the daughter of the Prophet Muhammad, after it prompted protests outside some cinemas.

The cinema chain said it made the decision "to ensure the safety of our staff and customers".

More than 120,000 people have signed a petition for The Lady of Heaven film to be pulled from UK cinemas.

The Bolton Council of Mosques called the film "blasphemous" and sectarian.

But a House of Lords peer called the decision "disastrous for the arts [and] dangerous for free speech".
I am a bit torn. On the one hand it is people power working as intended, and reducing the impact of offensive media. On the other hand if there are credable threats of violence that is a whole different thing.

It has managed to upset Sunni Muslims and most Shia as well. The use of black actors to play the films bad guys is pretty dodgy too.
It deserves to be criticised and protested against, although not violently ofc.

Still, the controversy runs the risk of garnering the film attention it wouldn't get on its merits as a film.
 
It has managed to upset Sunni Muslims and most Shia as well. The use of black actors to play the films bad guys is pretty dodgy too.
It deserves to be criticised and protested against, although not violently ofc.

Still, the controversy runs the risk of garnering the film attention it wouldn't get on its merits as a film.

Why is the use of black people to play the "bad guys" so different than their use (to also play the bad guys= the greeks :p ) in that pitiful Trojan war bbc series?

Anyway, religious movements banning movies as "blasphemous" is clearly not a good look for the Uk. It is rather glaringly a move towards barbarism.

 
Last edited:
Anyway, religious movements banning movies as "blasphemous" is clearly not a good look for the Uk. It is rather glaringly a move towards barbarism.
They are not banning it, they are complaining and protesting cinemas, which has a long history in the UK.
 
They are not banning it, they are complaining and protesting cinemas, which has a long history in the UK.

In an attempt to ban the movie, no? No one said they have the power to officially ban it themselves, but they do show up with violent intentions and yell abuse so as to make people fear enough and just "choose" to not play the movie in their cinema.

The movie being unhistorical or biased or similar would in no way be different from virtually all other movies about historical or religious stuff.
 
In an attempt to ban the movie, no? No one said they have the power to officially ban it themselves, but they do show up with violent intentions and yell abuse so as to make people fear enough and just "choose" to not play the movie in their cinema.

The movie being unhistorical or biased or similar would in no way be different from virtually all other movies about historical or religious stuff.
You replied before I got my edit in. The church got Life of Brian banned in the UK, sort of.

In Britain, opposition wasn’t as fierce, but there was plenty of it. Some local councils banned the film, a measure which did it no harm at all: people would simply flock to the nearest city where it was showing.​
 
Yes, and going by those old videos it looks like it was one of the last attempts of the church of England to present itself as an important entity in social affairs, with actual power. Now it appears to have lost any such power. But I don't see how the trajectory is that for the muslim churches in the Uk.
 
Has it really been a year since this thread was active? Seriously, my sense of time is screwed.

Cineworld cancels The Lady of Heaven film screenings after protests

Cineworld has cancelled all UK screenings of a film about the daughter of the Prophet Muhammad, after it prompted protests outside some cinemas.

The cinema chain said it made the decision "to ensure the safety of our staff and customers".

More than 120,000 people have signed a petition for The Lady of Heaven film to be pulled from UK cinemas.

The Bolton Council of Mosques called the film "blasphemous" and sectarian.

But a House of Lords peer called the decision "disastrous for the arts [and] dangerous for free speech".
I am a bit torn. On the one hand it is people power working as intended, and reducing the impact of offensive media. On the other hand if there are credable threats of violence that is a whole different thing.
Seems like a British problem. In the US we get to see lots of movies that offend both religion and history. Now that they have the publicity, just stream it.
 
Why is the use of black people to play the "bad guys" so different than their use (to also play the bad guys= the greeks :p ) in that pitiful Trojan war bbc series?

Anyway, religious movements banning movies as "blasphemous" is clearly not a good look for the Uk. It is rather glaringly a move towards barbarism.


I didn't watch that series but I don't think its any different. Thats to say its wrong.
Theres been a long history of religions, Christian, Muslim, Sikh, Jewish protesting about movies. Happens in lots of countries, not just the UK.
 
Seems like a British problem. In the US we get to see lots of movies that offend both religion and history. Now that they have the publicity, just stream it.

I ssem to remember quite a lot of protests about both Dogma and The Last Temptation of Christ in the US.
 
I ssem to remember quite a lot of protests about both Dogma and The Last Temptation of Christ in the US.
Sure, but they still were shown. Also LTC was released in 1988, that is 34 years ago and into a very different world.

Like the novel it was based on, the film generated controversy at the time of its release from Christian religious groups, who took issue with its departures from the gospel narratives. It received positive reviews from critics and some religious leaders, and Scorsese received a nomination for the Academy Award for Best Director. Hershey's performance as Mary Magdalene earned her a nomination for the Golden Globe for Best Supporting Actress. Peter Gabriel's music score also received acclaim, including a nomination for the Golden Globe Award for Best Original Score. Dafoe's performance was praised, with some thinking he should have been nominated for Best Actor. However, Keitel's performance was not well received and he was nominated for Worst Supporting Actor at the Golden Raspberry Awards.

Controversy[edit]
Terrorist attack[edit]
Main article: 1988 attack on Saint-Michel cinema in Paris
On October 22, 1988, an Integralist Catholic group set fire to the Saint Michel cinema in Paris while it was showing the film. Shortly after midnight, an incendiary device ignited under a seat in the less supervised underground room, where a different film was being shown. The incendiary device consisted of a charge of potassium chlorate, triggered by a vial containing sulphuric acid.[22] The attack injured thirteen people, four of whom were severely burned, and severely damaged the cinema.

Death threats[edit]
In Roger Ebert's book Scorsese by Ebert, the critic wrote of the reaction to The Last Temptation of Christ, "...Scorsese was targeted by death threats and the jeremiads of TV evangelists".[23] The threats were significant enough that Scorsese had to use bodyguards during public appearances for a few years.[citation needed]

Protests[edit]
Because of the film's departures from the gospel narratives—and especially a brief scene wherein Jesus and Mary Magdalene consummate their marriage—several Christian groups organized vocal protests and boycotts of the film prior to and upon its release. One protest, organized by a religious Californian radio station, gathered 600 protesters to picket the headquarters of Universal Studios' then parent company MCA.[24] One of the protestors dressed up as MCA's Chairman Lew Wasserman and pretended to drive nails through Jesus' hands into a wooden cross.[8] Evangelist Bill Bright offered to buy the film's negative from Universal in order to destroy it.[24][25] The protests were effective in convincing several theater chains not to screen the film.[24] One of those chains, General Cinemas, later apologized to Scorsese for doing so.[8]

Censorship and bans[edit]
Mother Angelica, a Catholic nun and founder of Eternal Word Television Network, described Last Temptation as "the most blasphemous ridicule of the Eucharist that's ever been perpetrated in this world" and "a holocaust movie that has the power to destroy souls eternally."[26] In some countries, including Greece, Turkey, Mexico, Chile, and Argentina, the film was banned or censored for several years. As of July 2010, the film continues to be banned in the Philippines and Singapore.[27] In February 2020, Netflix revealed the film to be one of the five titles that have been removed from the Singapore version of Netflix at the demand of the Singapore government's Infocomm Media Development Authority.[28][29]
 
Sure, but they still were shown. Also LTC was released in 1988, that is 34 years ago and into a very different world.

Like the novel it was based on, the film generated controversy at the time of its release from Christian religious groups, who took issue with its departures from the gospel narratives. It received positive reviews from critics and some religious leaders, and Scorsese received a nomination for the Academy Award for Best Director. Hershey's performance as Mary Magdalene earned her a nomination for the Golden Globe for Best Supporting Actress. Peter Gabriel's music score also received acclaim, including a nomination for the Golden Globe Award for Best Original Score. Dafoe's performance was praised, with some thinking he should have been nominated for Best Actor. However, Keitel's performance was not well received and he was nominated for Worst Supporting Actor at the Golden Raspberry Awards.

Controversy[edit]
Terrorist attack[edit]
Main article: 1988 attack on Saint-Michel cinema in Paris
On October 22, 1988, an Integralist Catholic group set fire to the Saint Michel cinema in Paris while it was showing the film. Shortly after midnight, an incendiary device ignited under a seat in the less supervised underground room, where a different film was being shown. The incendiary device consisted of a charge of potassium chlorate, triggered by a vial containing sulphuric acid.[22] The attack injured thirteen people, four of whom were severely burned, and severely damaged the cinema.

Death threats[edit]
In Roger Ebert's book Scorsese by Ebert, the critic wrote of the reaction to The Last Temptation of Christ, "...Scorsese was targeted by death threats and the jeremiads of TV evangelists".[23] The threats were significant enough that Scorsese had to use bodyguards during public appearances for a few years.[citation needed]

Protests[edit]
Because of the film's departures from the gospel narratives—and especially a brief scene wherein Jesus and Mary Magdalene consummate their marriage—several Christian groups organized vocal protests and boycotts of the film prior to and upon its release. One protest, organized by a religious Californian radio station, gathered 600 protesters to picket the headquarters of Universal Studios' then parent company MCA.[24] One of the protestors dressed up as MCA's Chairman Lew Wasserman and pretended to drive nails through Jesus' hands into a wooden cross.[8] Evangelist Bill Bright offered to buy the film's negative from Universal in order to destroy it.[24][25] The protests were effective in convincing several theater chains not to screen the film.[24] One of those chains, General Cinemas, later apologized to Scorsese for doing so.[8]

Censorship and bans[edit]
Mother Angelica, a Catholic nun and founder of Eternal Word Television Network, described Last Temptation as "the most blasphemous ridicule of the Eucharist that's ever been perpetrated in this world" and "a holocaust movie that has the power to destroy souls eternally."[26] In some countries, including Greece, Turkey, Mexico, Chile, and Argentina, the film was banned or censored for several years. As of July 2010, the film continues to be banned in the Philippines and Singapore.[27] In February 2020, Netflix revealed the film to be one of the five titles that have been removed from the Singapore version of Netflix at the demand of the Singapore government's Infocomm Media Development Authority.[28][29]

The Lady of Heaven is still being shown by at least 1 cinema chain. 2 others have decided not to show it. No one has banned it. I don't think theres any provision in UK law for forcing a cinema to show a movie.
 
America is full of wackadoodles protesting. Its rare we would ever get protests about religion in the UK. This is more a risk of serious threat to life since your average Muslim terrorists get so murdery with depictions of the prophet.
 
The use of black actors to play the films bad guys is pretty dodgy too.
It deserves to be criticised and protested against, although not violently ofc.

In the USA they tend to use British actors to play the films bad guys, is that pretty dodgy too?

I am a bit torn. On the one hand it is people power working as intended, and reducing the impact of offensive media. On the other hand if there are credable threats of violence that is a whole different thing.

Sounds like you approve of it being not shown due to it being considered offensive?

If so, do you think the DaVinci code or Dogma should have also been not shown for the same reasons?
 
The price of liberalism is the risk of having my sensibilities offended. If I didn’t like it, I could always just go somewhere else.
Or, as it was drilled into me growing up, grow a thicker skin.
 
If I didn’t like it, I could always just go somewhere else.

Or indeed if movie offends you, don't watch it!

After all they can't make you watch something you might find offensive.

At least normally...
 
For me the so called "PC" is the end of culture, we have to be obedient slaves to the allmighty PC language ,less You insult somebody ! Jesus just kill me already !!!!
 
Back
Top Bottom