06/05

I think the movie insufficiently shows how the immigration debate was muddled by intolerance, obscurantism, intimidation and character assassination, and how it eventually led to physical assassination. Some user comments give you a flavour, though. Pravda-5 seems to be consumed by the most intense racial animosity, directed against the Dutch, who stand accused of "in-bread racism" (the word is inbred, by the way). This is exactly the Soviet-like unmeasured demagoguery that had Fortuyn killed. Would I be allowed to make a generalization of my own? Would it be off-limits to present some statistically significant data about crime committed by immigrants, which makes the Dutch a bit wary and suspicious? Now that would be racism, wouldn't it? Or the fact that a significant minority is involved in gang and violent criminal activity and that large portion of these people feel alienated from the dominant culture and have made it explicitly clear that they will do as they please, regardless of what the laws say. Another fact is that we are one the most racially diverse of the leading industrialized nations, with the biggest percentage of non-Western immigrants. That we have done many things for the eternally "disaffected" Muslims: We have build them mosques with imposing minarets all over Rotterdam, Amsterdam and the rest of the country, we have authorized state grants to Islamic schools etc. etc. Many Muslims however relate to their host countries in ways that are diametrically opposed to the multicultural indulgence that they have received. Did I mention that Van Gogh is dead, like Fortuyn? And that two prominent politicians are into hiding for the rest of their lives? That sort of proves their point, doesn't it? I also can't say that I'm much impressed by the idiot schoolmarmish cant about racism and xenophobia from SnoopDogDog from Albania. To call opinions you don't like racist is such a debasement, the question is: are they t-r-u-e?". A phobia is an irrational fear of something or someone. It is not irrational to fear those who follow issued fatwa's. Fortuyn was a public-spirited person doing his citizenly best to promote his idea that freedom of speech is more important than the supposed feelings of Muslims. Fortuyn's opinions were politically incorrect, the opinions of the left were simply incorrect, comparing him to Hitler in a very volatile period of World War II commemorations, which was an offence to objective truth and reason. However, Fortuyn never thought that any speech should be legally banned. By the way, we take the p*ss out of everyone, we're Dutch! Catholics, protestants, homosexuals, foreigners and since recently Muslims. No suffering stronger than hurt feelings is involved.

As a political statement, this is a failed attempt, I have to agree with others here. The ridiculous ending points towards lack of self respect and respect for the viewer. Maybe it was done out of trying not to take oneself too seriously, if this was so, then that's failed too. It fails to make clear that killing Fortuyn was in response to what left-wing politicians said, and that it was necessary for Volkert van der G. to do so.

The only support for the conspiracy theory which is sort of makes sense is the fact that VvdG was arrested so quickly. However, we have to remember that in conspiracy theories, you don't have to prove anything, the lack of proof is proof itself. Still, you might cling to that old who-dun-it meme: "Follow da money!" Who benefited from his death? The left? Not really, (or rather, really not) they were vilified at the elections, lost 50 percent of their seats in Parliament and they didn't recover until recently. The loony Right? Maybe, because they had a martyr, and they milked that cow until it had Mad Cow disease, too. The arms/JSF lobby? Hmmm, yes and no. The JSF has been the govts choice, but it's controversial, since Dutch defense industry didn't get any deals out of it, so the left can make the truthful case that we're being sucked dry by the Americans. The centre party, the Christian Democrats? They DID profit, electorally, they were seen as a sensible alternative to the opportunistic Fortuyn-party. But perhaps the ones who profited most were the 'sensible' right, the conservatives. Everyone agrees that it is the Iron Heel of THEIR political agenda which now rules the Netherlands ...

Technically, the film was good, some of the camera work was even very good. Sparse, not too much. The lead actor wasn't bad, but he mumbled too much for him to get Best Actor prize. Totally ridiculous was the casting of the daughter! Especially in the scenes with the father, sometimes HE looked younger, despite his beard,

I found it totally unbelievable that she was 15! She's pretty, she's a good actress, but looked too old. Most ridiculous, the scene in the pool/waterparadise. Embarrassing.

Being of Dutch origin and reading Dutch newspapers almost daily, I should have known about the existence of this film. But I did not. By accident I came across this DVD at my favorite movie-letter. This is the first full length Dutch feature film I ever saw and I must say, I am impressed. It is a very typical Dutch film-too much emphasis on family problems and never ending discussions about understanding each other-, the story though is very acceptingly with the stumbling role of the Dutch version of the CIA (the AIVD)and the political lack of interest in finding out the truth. Pim Fortuyn was too big for Holland, his violent death was too much for the rather closed and upright society, that Holland in fact still is. The repetition of the things politicians of that time ventilated about Fortuyn was shocking and amazing. It is obvious that Holland is still suffering about his loss and about the circumstances that lead to his brutal death.The wound is too fresh to be dealt with in a objective manner. Theo van Gogh tried to do that and was also murdered, although for different reasons, you might think. But there is a connection for sure.

First off, let's all admit that this film would probably never had a chance to see a production budget of any kind before September 11th, 2001. Secondly, two of the main characters are westernized Muslims and in the film they drink alcohol, have a sexual affair, and wear regular clothes ( no hijab for the female character ). What all of that means, exactly, is something of a mystery to me.

Third, the story-telling in this film is far better than some of the other comments might indicate. Given that the fine DVD presentation requires the viewer to read subtitles for the parts given in other languages, which is about 98 per cent of the film, it all works real well. In my less-than-humble opinion, of course.

Apparently the Dutch secret service or spy agency does not believe in or perhaps does not need warrants to break into the homes of private citizens, and is not averse to random acts of vandalism, as well.

So, yes, the story is convoluted and to see this film without some basic back-grounding on the politics involved makes it a daunting task. On the other side, the principal actors mostly do a very fine job in their characterizations of real persons. The fact that the film ends without giving the viewer any kind of "in the face" explanation of who really killed the Dutch politician, Pym, does not make the story in any way irrelevant. Nor can any sensible person find anything racist in this intriguing drama. On the contrary, the Netherlands is presented as being a most tolerant place where natives and second-generation immigrants live next to each other and work together quite well.

It's a spy story and a murder story, after all, and it does provoke the viewer to ask ... who really wanted that fellow Pym to be killed ? The colorful, controversial life of Theo van Gogh, who was in life so very central to the creation of this film, is NOT the subject here.

The pacing and the direction were really rather good, and it is not a "slow-paced" film, but it is telling a rather convoluted story. Leading lady Tara Elders does a remarkable turn in a tough role, too, as the Muslim immigrant with a checkered past.

For my dollar two ninety-five, it was worth renting and worth viewing twice. The second time around the intrigue was much easier to grasp.

It is necessary to know something about the recent history of the Netherlands to get the full value of this production.

A shocking assassination of a controversial public figure, muddy, insufficient explanation, hence a logical ground for a conspiracy theories. If you add that the director of the movie gets murdered himself, soon after finishing this film,it all gets even more convoluted. Pim Fortuyn was labeled with the extremist labels, racism, intolerance, but he was much more complex person. An open homosexual, asking hard but not unfair questions. Without any answers or useful suggestions, he was smeared and easily dismissed. And shortly after killed. The movie is powerful, but little disjointed , as if the director wasn't sure himself of his intentions.