Hacker News Reader

Comment by nintendo95 | Hacker News Reader

/cynical/ So sad that nowadays Swedes can't have a say about radical immams. /cynical/ How cool it is to have fun of Jesus but to have fun of Mahommed? How "far" we have "progressed" ;-) In 40 years from having fun about religious leaders to burning heretics like witches.

Wouldn't it be fun to watch movie having fun about Mohammed in Sweden? Or we became some kind of cultural caliphat in the mean time? Joking about Jesus respecting Mohammed? There is a reason for which our era is referred to as "new middle-ages" by some philosophers.

Sad.

By the way there is much more comedy material in Mohammed case too.

As we know since Freud hypocrisy is this what makes the best jokes. I.e. saint God messiah who is a war lord and peadophile in the meantime. Try making movie about that.

View on HN

Sure, people should be able to poke fun at Mohammed, freedom of speech etc etc. But why would you? Life of Brian was a movie about Christianity, made by those born into Christianity, meant to be watched by fellow Christians. Hence why it provided an opportunity for introspection and self-reflection.

A movie lampooning Mohammed, made by Christians and for the amusement of other Christians, offers no such opportunity for self-reflection or growth. It would be nothing more than 21st century blackface.

It might help a Muslim leave his religion. A religion which ostracizes atheist so much that they are still killed by stoning and decapitation.

It might appeal to non Christians, ex-hindus like me. Or ex-Christians.

Should you be part of a group to criticize it? Can only Hitler criticize Nazis?

How many Muslims in Sweden are going to be watching a comedy that lampoons their religion?

How exactly is lampooning Islam going to help Christians, ex-Christians or ex-Hindus?

The prophet Mohammed in Islam is seen with more reverence than Jesus in Christianity, invoking his name is also very delicate in Islam (you are supposed to say a blessing anytime you do and avoid invoking it lightly, there's a lot of rules around it).

With these religious/cultural differences I can understand how Muslim take greater offence to people making fun of their most prominent prophet as opposed to Christians, but also you have to take into account that because of that, people usually are more provocative with their humour when it comes to Mohammed.

I can't remember having seen any sexually depraved depiction of Jesus in mainstream media whereas I can clearly remember many that depicted Mohammed.

IMO it's not as easy to make fun of Islam/Mohammed because people tend to go for the extreme in term of dark humour but also it's not perceived the same way by the religious communities.

> The prophet Mohammed in Islam is seen with more reverence than Jesus in Christianity, invoking his name is also very delicate in Islam...

Interestingly, the west does not, however, honor similar Jewish reverence towards utterance or the writing of the name of G-d. See, for example, http://www.jewfaq.org/name.htm. I always wondered about the discrepancy.

Well, this video was aired a few weeks ago on public television. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFzl4dEBmJE But you are perhaps right that we refrain from making fun of Muslims, Jews, Gypsies, Africans and other minorities. Reason being that they have been persecuted so it's like kicking downwards. We do make fun of Danes, Norweigans and Finns though. :)

Nowhere in the world can we have a comedy about Mohammed because the comedians want to live (a funny life), too. In a few progressive countries people tried to make fun of Mohammed and they're, for the most part, dead.

(And The Life of Brian doesn't make fun of Jesus in any way, that's what people who haven't seen the film think.)

>doesn't make fun of Jesus in any way, //

Whilst they're careful in the action of the film to make it clear Brian isn't Jesus, surely the central premise is that "Jesus is Brian", that his presentation as Son of God is a [comedic] mishap, or misunderstanding.

IMO the idea was not to make fun of Jesus but the followers of Jesus. This is clearly shown when people start following Brian for no freaking reason and start creating "miracles" just because they want to believe it. The movie lives side-by-side Jesus and criticizes faith in a satire approach by using Brian and his cult followers.

That's interesting, it's almost as if we watched two different movies. Actually I was expecting a lot of Jesus and I was a bit disappointed by not seeing him much. On the contrary, I saw a lot of "people and times", portrayed in a comical way.

Like the way the original Terminator wasn't about cyborgs from the future because you never (seldom?) see the future? Or Lord of the Flies wasn't about how civilisation readily devolves, it was just about a group of kids?

Are you trying to tell me you don't think it is saying 'people are mistaken and Jesus was just a man'? (Or perhaps 'a very naughty boy'!)

To me it seemed carefully written to maintain deniability and skirt blasphemy regulations.

FWIW it's a film I've enjoyed watching both as an agnostic and as a Christian.

Yes, the film was about the times of Jesus, about groups of people that might have followed him, of people that might have helped to crucify him (for the same reasons - blindly following the crowd), about Romans, about Jews, about Jews hating Romans, about Romans oppressing Jews, about ridiculous laws, but... not really about Jesus. I watched the film again 2 weeks ago, hardly anything about Jesus. I can hardly believe anyone could identify Brian with Jesus, these are two completely different characters.

Then I believe you've missed the central premise.

And, you're right Brian is not the Messiah (which is just what the Messiah would say!).

You know Animal Farm isn't about a farmyard, right?

No, I believe we differ in our perception of the role of Brian, and you seem to hold the position that bishops and other offended people held: that the creators of the movie identified brian with Jesus. I agree that if you wanted. you coudl interpret the film in this way. But it's not necessary. You will watch a completely different film then. You will see a Jesus who was ridiculous, cowardly, a bit stupid. But this makes no sense - Jesus is already in the movie and he is a completely different person.

There are many examples in literature and film where the creators focus on a personage close to a celebrity and make them the main character. But I guess the film is well done if we can both claim our positions and believe the other person is wrong.

I specifically stated, twice, that I didn't believe Brian to be Jesus. I think that's the massive knee-jerk reaction of those who only saw clips at the initial release.

I don't think the writers took a post-modernist approach. Indeed, as I tried to explain, the inclusion of Jesus as a character is IMO a clear attempt to say "see, no blasphemy here" for the purposes of publishing the film. (FWIW I don't consider the film blasphemous without the Jesus scenes, not explicitly at least).

The intention is pretty clearly to say "Jesus is Brian", ie "he's elevated by the crowd to his position as Messiah, rather than that being an intrinsic part of the man known as Jesus".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com