What happens if a filmmaker wants to produce a movie that is arguably offensive and likely to be very politically controversial abroad? Apparently, that depends on whom it is likely to offend, or perhaps on how powerful the filmmaker is.
When an individual made the film “Innocence of Muslims” the US government took the controversial step of condemning the film. Actually, it is not clear that this movie was ever even made. The controversy surrounded two YouTube ‘trailers’ for a movie that no-one seems to have ever seen. The attitude of the Obama administration was doubly controversial. Some groups – such as Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood – thought that he should ban the film and prosecute those who made it. Others, such as this columnist, thought he should loudly insist that he has no power to ban films and that he would not if he could. You would think that even in the spirit of appeasement, stressing to all concerned that he could not ban the movie even if he wanted to would have been a core message.
But the attitude of the administration to a movie in which the CIA is presented as plotting the death of a foreign head of state was quite different. Officials from the State Department apparently viewed “The Interview” in June and gave their blessing to it.
That’s a bit of a concern. The State Department has no role in approving movies. Even though the government told Sony to go ahead, responding to a request for approval at all suggests the government thought its approval was necessary – or at least interesting. Clearly, approving the film is better than blocking it, but granting approval rather suggests the government thought it had the power to withhold approval. If the administration’s only response had been “uh, sure, go ahead. None of our business either way” officials would not have needed to see the movie first.
Furthermore, if the State Department thought it had a role in granting or withholding approval for the movie, it seems as though the officials badly misjudged the political fallout that it would provoke. North Korea engaged in a cyber-attack on Sony so serious that distributors thought it prudent to decline to show the movie and Sony itself has now withdrawn from plans to launch it on Christmas Day.
The State Department has not only stepped into the role of deciding whether or not a movie should go ahead, the advice it has given on the subject seems to be hopelessly incompetent. Better an incompetent censor, I suppose, than one alert to the genuine political issues which beset this movie.
Why the difference in attitude to these two movies? Perhaps it is simply that there are more Muslims in the world than North Koreans. Maybe that Islam is a religion, and insulting it is deeply offensive to many whereas insulting a politician is generally seen the West as being healthy
But I can’t help recalling that the administration had its own reasons for talking up the significance of “Innocence of Muslims”. It was convenient to pretend that the attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi was a spontaneous reaction to the trailers on YouTube. The administration could not have anticipated that. It was really long-planned for the anniversary of 9/11 and the administration could, arguably, have been more alert.
Quentin Langley is a Senior Lecturer in Marketing at the University of Bedfordshire Business School as well as a freelance columnist published in the UK and all parts of the US. He blogs on social media and crisis communications at brandjacknews.com
Filed under: U.S. Politics
