Daniel Pearl, with gun pointed at head by Islamist kidnapper/murdererIt'll be a while (I wait for the DVD to come out, as there's no subtitles in the theater releases, a fact that prevents me from being aware of most of what's being said in movies, as I cannot hear them) before I watch the new movie about the kidnapping and murder of Daniel Pearl by Islamic jihadists, in which Angelina Jolie stars, having been asked to do so by Mrs. Pearl, I understand.
But Front Page Mag has some analysis already.
I think it's worthwhile to read the analysis, just in case one also reads analysis praising the movie, perhaps written by a leftist reviewer (and most reviewers do seem to be of the politically-correct, brainless leftwing bent). One doesn't want to watch the movie with any prejudices one way or another, so I provide this link.
As always, it's the responsibility of the reader/viewer to properly inform oneself as to the cold, hard facts of what happened in the Pearl murder, which are basically that he was kidnapped and murdered by Islamic fascists/supremacists/imperialists/jihadists. It also bears mentioning that he was Jewish, something that his murderers consider making him deserving of death. Of this there can be no doubt... so if the movie is found by a viewer to be sympathetic to any supposed "Muslim point of view" rather than simply looking at what actually happened and telling the story, then the movie must be exposed for any such bias. (Note that "bias", as I use the term here, can mean to adulterate the truth with respect to one or more parties).
Here's some excerpts (My inserted commentary is in italics):
"A Mighty Heart," starring Angelina Jolie, is yet another propaganda film masquerading as an action drama. The film is presumably about Daniel Pearl, the Wall Street Journal reporter whom al-Qaeda, led by British-born Ahmed Omar Sheikh, kidnapped, tortured, and gruesomely be-headed on video, a copy of which they subsequently provided to the media. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has confessed to the be-heading.
I remember that heart-stopping video in which Pearl admits that he is a Jew (as if that is a crime) and that his parents are Jews-- in fact, he tells us, perhaps gratuitously, unexpectedly, that the Israelis named a street in Israel after his grand-father. And then, horror of horrors, Daniel Pearl is decapitated by masked gunmen. This video was seen around the world, over and over again. The video itself functioned as a form of psychological terror. Many westerners got the message. They have behaved in appeasing, dhimmi-like ways ever since.
We only see a snippet of this video in "A Mighty Heart." The video is missing--as is Daniel Pearl himself. What we see, instead, are Hollywood's "good Indians." This time they are Pakistani Muslim policemen who only want to help find Pearl's kidnappers. (The chief of police is played by beloved Indian actor Irfan Khan, who played the father in the movie version of Jhumpa Lahiri's "Namesake").
Hmm... talk about manipulation of perception... really, the cold, hard truth ought definitely to have been shown without editing. As it hasn't been, then the impact of the truth is lost on viewers, and the point of the movie lost, the point being that Muslim supremacists murdered a Jewish person in cold blood in the name of their "religion" and in the name of their extremist/imperialist political agenda.
In Cannes, the film was given a standing ovation. Variety's reporter, Justin Chang, congratulated the British director, Michael Winterbottom ("The Road to Guantanamo") for finding a way to interest people in what is, after all, a rather "harrowing" story. Thus, the film wisely focuses on Angelina Jolie the star--not on Daniel Pearl, who was also cut up into ten pieces after being butchered. He commends the "pic (which) negotiates its way around another potential landmine" (the video of Daniel Pearl). Chang praises the film's "utmost restraint"--which in my view, is itself the ultimate in dhimmi behavior. Indeed, the film does not condemn Islamic terrorism at all and only once whispers the name "Al-Qaeda."
Also worthy of mention that a New York Times film critic praises the film. Oh, my... the NYT likes the film... this is a big yellow flashing light, as we know full well the super-politically-correct, far-left NYT's Dhimmi-heavy worldview.
When the left likes a movie... the movie must be more closely scrutinized for any propagandic themes.
It's also troubling that the terrorist-supporting CAIR actually likes the movie and, in fact, hosted its premiere in Los Angeles.
And I recall that Angelina Jolie has been reported to have said some quite vile things about Israel and the Free World while praising the likes of the "Palestinians" et al. So when I first heard that Ms. Jolie was going to star, I was shocked. More shocked when I learned that Mrs. Pearl actually asked her to play her. (Don't ask me why- ask Mrs. Pearl... only she knows why).
It's also noted that the film effectively blames Mr. Pearl for what happened to him. Talk about blaming the victim!
Well, you might as well watch the movie and judge for yourself. After first informing yourself of the facts of the Pearl murder, if you haven't already (letting the left/MSM tell you what's what doesn't count as "informing yourself").
The point is that if the movie whitewashes the truth with political correctness, then what was the point of the movie, if not to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
