Buruma hits on something when he is talking about this film in the book Murder in Amsterdam: he says that van Gogh and Ali are missing something in Submission, and I think that is very evident. They are missing the audience that should most be moved by the film, namely Muslim women. The film is very intense and very moving, telling the stories of Muslim women, the hardships they face, and the unjust crimes against them: beatings, rapes, and domination. The stories are told as the women wear veils with much of the rest of their bodies exposed, text (apparently of the Koran) drawn on them, praying on Muslim prayer rugs. They speak with Allah directly, asking Him about his reign, his rules, and how what is said in the Koran, what they allegedly suffer under Muslim law, has to do with their spiritual life and their salvation. It’s a very powerful film, and remarkably provocative, but I think that in the midst of its provocation, its message really gets lost.
Ali and van Gogh are presenting their view of Islam as an inherently sexist, unreasonable, and intolerant religion. But who are they trying to convince? If it’s the society at large, it doesn’t seem necessary to make this film. According to Buruma’s assessment of the political and cultural situation in The Netherlands at the time, that sentiment was already present, apparently, and all van Gogh and Ali are doing is adding thoughtless fuel to the fire. Granted, that's usually what hate-mongers want, not reflection but emotion.
If it is Muslim women, the method is obviously going to turn them off. The film is not just anti-Islam, it is sacrilegious, almost gleefully so. In Murder in Amsterdam, we hear about a Muslim woman who was so shocked by the film that her daughter felt embarrassed for her, and who admits that she would never be able to see the film, let alone understand it. A devout Muslim, even one who feels and/or experiences some of the alleged crimes perpetrated against Muslim women in this film is probably going to be too upset to hear what it has to say, or to reflect on how the experiences presented here mirror their own or their culture's situation.
This film should have provoked a conversation among Dutch society about the social meaning of the teachings of the Koran, and instead it provoked a murder. Van Gogh made his life as a provocateur, but is that really what we need when we are dealing with these sorts of delicate issues?
We briefly discussed the complications involved in freedom of speech in class on Monday, and many of those complications are evident when we look at this film, and at the fall-out from it. Certainly neither van Gogh nor Ali deserve to have threats made on their lives for speaking their minds. They both felt that they had a point to make with this film, and it’s a valid point. At the same time, they should have known that it was going to anger people, and anger is incredibly counter-productive when trying to raise sensitive issues of culture and equality, as the tragic story around this film shows.
