Submission: Part I
- टीवी शॉर्ट
- 2004
- 12 मि
IMDb रेटिंग
6.7/10
1.7 हज़ार
आपकी रेटिंग
अपनी भाषा में प्लॉट जोड़ेंShort film on the mistreatment of women in the Islam. It shows abused women, with Koran texts on their bodies that validate their mistreatment.Short film on the mistreatment of women in the Islam. It shows abused women, with Koran texts on their bodies that validate their mistreatment.Short film on the mistreatment of women in the Islam. It shows abused women, with Koran texts on their bodies that validate their mistreatment.
- निर्देशक
- लेखक
फ़ोटो
फ़ीचर्ड समीक्षाएं
Submission is a 10-minute film in English directed by Theo van Gogh and written by Ayaan Hirsi Ali (a former member of the Dutch House of Representatives for the People's Party for Freedom and Democracy); it was shown on the Dutch public broadcasting network (available on YouTube). The film's title is a direct translation of the word "Islam".
The film tells the story of four fictional characters played by a single actress wearing a veil, but clad in a see-through chador, her naked body painted with verses from the Koran. The characters are Muslim women who have been abused in various ways. The film contains monologues of these women and dramatically highlights three verses of the Quran,(4:34 2:222 and 24:2) that authorize mistreatment of women, by showing them painted on women's bodies.
It is a political statement and indictment of those countries that allow honor killing to go on despite laws against them.
The film tells the story of four fictional characters played by a single actress wearing a veil, but clad in a see-through chador, her naked body painted with verses from the Koran. The characters are Muslim women who have been abused in various ways. The film contains monologues of these women and dramatically highlights three verses of the Quran,(4:34 2:222 and 24:2) that authorize mistreatment of women, by showing them painted on women's bodies.
It is a political statement and indictment of those countries that allow honor killing to go on despite laws against them.
It is hard to speak about the state of women in Islam without being told to keep quite,sometime the ultimate price has to be paid.That is the nature of this film. It may not make for friends but it gets things in the open so that changes can take place so human rights can be respected. There have been very few films about Islam as a religion.I do not know of any about the human right tragedy in the Sudan.I wish to see more films about Islam but am afraid that filmmakers will be leery after this.That is why I hope that filmmakers will not be afraid of death threats,because information about Islam is needed especially since 911.WE must realize that the Dutch are very tolerant and that this atheist filmmaker did have a right to make films that is the bottom line.I hope that the film will energize Islamic men to correct abuses as much as they can.
10xenolupa
The murdering of Van Gogh proves the value of the movie. It proves that there are Muslims out there that behave just like the movie tells us. The reactions of several Muslims in other comments here at IMDb also prove the value of he movie. They show that no comments are allowed to be made about Islam, any comment, any critique, is bad and evil and is considered (by Muslims) to be offensive to Muslims.
Islam is a totalitarian religion, Muslims are totalitarians. They accept no comments on their ways, on their religion. They respond with violence, with death threats, with loud protests. They do that over and over again, like they did against Ayaan Hirsi Ali, like they did at the time of the Danish cartoons. They can't control themselves, it seems.
They use the Qurân to show they are right for using violence. Suicide bombings bring Muslims to heaven. Killing Theo van Hogh brings the Muslim who killed him to heaven. A Muslim who would kill Ayaan Hirsi Ali (or Salman Rushdie) would go to heaven. Hitting disobedient wives is allowed by the Qurân. Killing non-believers (heretics) is allowed by the Qurân.
They? Not all of them. Indeed. But too many do.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Theo van Gogh are heroes for making this movie.
Islam is a totalitarian religion, Muslims are totalitarians. They accept no comments on their ways, on their religion. They respond with violence, with death threats, with loud protests. They do that over and over again, like they did against Ayaan Hirsi Ali, like they did at the time of the Danish cartoons. They can't control themselves, it seems.
They use the Qurân to show they are right for using violence. Suicide bombings bring Muslims to heaven. Killing Theo van Hogh brings the Muslim who killed him to heaven. A Muslim who would kill Ayaan Hirsi Ali (or Salman Rushdie) would go to heaven. Hitting disobedient wives is allowed by the Qurân. Killing non-believers (heretics) is allowed by the Qurân.
They? Not all of them. Indeed. But too many do.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Theo van Gogh are heroes for making this movie.
I think many of you are confused as to why Ayan Hirsi Ali decided to write this film and what she believed it would do for Muslim women. It is no secret that all religions seem to have a flaw within them. They also have a tendency to leave women out and treat them as unequal. I happen to be married to a practicing Muslim man who lived in Egypt until he was 10 years of age. We are newly weds and currently live in the united states while I finish school. I can truly say that many Muslim men don't beat, and abuse their wives. In fact a large portion love them to death. However, Don't TELL me that Islam doesn't condone honor killings.
Ayan Hirisi Ali's point was that honor killings are occurring in nations where police forces and governing bodies are at large. They are taking place in overly tolerant nations that have become morally blind. This I believe is a misplaced respect. You should not be allowed to shoot your daughter or slit her throat because she's wearing eye shadow and talked to a Christian boy. Progressive western nations such as Holland, Germany and the UK weren't punishing these "honor killers". In many cases they even received reduced sentencing for things that the nation deems unacceptable behavior. Ayan Hirsi Ali wanted to put a stop to that.
what better way than a film. Film is one of the most powerful ways of evoking a response out of a group of people. Once initial shock is over action hopefully takes place. Thats what Ms Hiris Ali desired. Now All of these western civilizations are scrambling for an answer. London is cracking down on their police force and training them to deal with honor killings. Holland is implementing legislation on protection of Muslim women, and Germany is discussing new integration laws.
The point is she opened this topic up before the world through the majesty of film. The power of art, written word and human voice combined. She had been fighting for this cause for awhile however before the film submission little had been done.
I read one comment earlier and this is my response to them - I don't believe Ayan Hirsi Ali wrongly executed her quest for better treatment of Muslim women by seeking out Van Gogh. Politically it was a brilliant choice. She was not trying to evoke a response from Holland's male Muslim population she was trying to reach the rest of Holland. So by having the controversial Van Gogh direct was a great idea. ( If You think she was actually going to change a conservative Muslim's opinion on honor killings through a 12 minute film than your being naive. Van Gogh was respected and admired by thousands. She wasn't trying to change Islams views. She was trying to awaken the rest of western europe. Think about it. It was well thought out.
My thanks for posting my comment and I hope everyone finds something they can draw out of it. I really have enjoyed the comments from all.
Ayan Hirisi Ali's point was that honor killings are occurring in nations where police forces and governing bodies are at large. They are taking place in overly tolerant nations that have become morally blind. This I believe is a misplaced respect. You should not be allowed to shoot your daughter or slit her throat because she's wearing eye shadow and talked to a Christian boy. Progressive western nations such as Holland, Germany and the UK weren't punishing these "honor killers". In many cases they even received reduced sentencing for things that the nation deems unacceptable behavior. Ayan Hirsi Ali wanted to put a stop to that.
what better way than a film. Film is one of the most powerful ways of evoking a response out of a group of people. Once initial shock is over action hopefully takes place. Thats what Ms Hiris Ali desired. Now All of these western civilizations are scrambling for an answer. London is cracking down on their police force and training them to deal with honor killings. Holland is implementing legislation on protection of Muslim women, and Germany is discussing new integration laws.
The point is she opened this topic up before the world through the majesty of film. The power of art, written word and human voice combined. She had been fighting for this cause for awhile however before the film submission little had been done.
I read one comment earlier and this is my response to them - I don't believe Ayan Hirsi Ali wrongly executed her quest for better treatment of Muslim women by seeking out Van Gogh. Politically it was a brilliant choice. She was not trying to evoke a response from Holland's male Muslim population she was trying to reach the rest of Holland. So by having the controversial Van Gogh direct was a great idea. ( If You think she was actually going to change a conservative Muslim's opinion on honor killings through a 12 minute film than your being naive. Van Gogh was respected and admired by thousands. She wasn't trying to change Islams views. She was trying to awaken the rest of western europe. Think about it. It was well thought out.
My thanks for posting my comment and I hope everyone finds something they can draw out of it. I really have enjoyed the comments from all.
Some movies are not nice. This is one of them. It is about sincere woman, faithful to their religion, but treated bad by the system.
This movie was the reason, it's maker, Theo van Gogh, has been slaughtered, by someone not able to communicate in a civilized way, but driven by an evil spirit.
Submission part I is strongly recommended to all woman, and those men who are strong enough to accept that men can show (collective) brutal and repressive behaviour.
The movie might be offensive to some people, as a woman's breast is shown behind a veil. This is not done in an erotic way.
This movie can explain more, than an entire book could do. A must see.
This movie was the reason, it's maker, Theo van Gogh, has been slaughtered, by someone not able to communicate in a civilized way, but driven by an evil spirit.
Submission part I is strongly recommended to all woman, and those men who are strong enough to accept that men can show (collective) brutal and repressive behaviour.
The movie might be offensive to some people, as a woman's breast is shown behind a veil. This is not done in an erotic way.
This movie can explain more, than an entire book could do. A must see.
क्या आपको पता है
- ट्रिवियाThe film created controversy in the Netherlands and director Theo van Gogh was ultimately killed because of it. On 2 November 2004, Van Gogh was assassinated in Amsterdam in public by Mohammed Bouyeri, a Dutch-Moroccan Muslim with a Dutch passport. First he shot Van Gogh, then he cut his throat and finally he affixed a letter to Van Gogh's body with a dagger. In the text he linked the murder to Van Gogh's film and his views regarding Islam.
- कनेक्शनFeatured in Zomergasten: एपिसोड #17.6 (2004)
टॉप पसंद
रेटिंग देने के लिए साइन-इन करें और वैयक्तिकृत सुझावों के लिए वॉचलिस्ट करें
विवरण
- रिलीज़ की तारीख़
- कंट्री ऑफ़ ओरिजिन
- भाषा
- इस रूप में भी जाना जाता है
- Покорность
- IMDbPro पर और कंपनी क्रेडिट देखें
बॉक्स ऑफ़िस
- बजट
- €18,000(अनुमानित)
- चलने की अवधि12 मिनट
- रंग
इस पेज में योगदान दें
किसी बदलाव का सुझाव दें या अनुपलब्ध कॉन्टेंट जोड़ें