|
News
Nov 12, 2020 19:20:15 GMT
via mobile
Post by sgev1977 on Nov 12, 2020 19:20:15 GMT
I think it would be nice for Mauritania. It's one of the poorest countries in the world and most people in the rest of the planet probably doesn't even know it exists . The story is about a Mauritanian and they shot scenes there. Some international attention would be good!
|
|
|
News
Nov 13, 2020 1:07:26 GMT
via mobile
Post by roverpup on Nov 13, 2020 1:07:26 GMT
Well perhaps they could also draw attention to the plethora of human rights violations perpetrated in that country from female genital mutilation (70%), child labour, human trafficking, and the political marginalization of largely southern-based, dark skinned ethnic groups (in the form of government denied but very real slavery) as well as the fact that homosexuality is illegal and is a capital offense and that Mauritania is one of only 13 countries that makes atheism punishable by death.
|
|
|
News
Nov 13, 2020 17:04:35 GMT
Post by sgev1977 on Nov 13, 2020 17:04:35 GMT
The movie is about other kind of injustice and I think it's kind of unfair to want it to include every injustice in the world. It's like when those immigration activists wanted to boycott it because one of the guys who helped the main character in real life behaved in an unethical way as an immigration judge. It's ok to criticize him but it's also ok to say he did something positive in the past about another issue because, well, it's true.
But yeah, that kind of ignorance and extremism usually happen with poverty and maybe some international attention could help to bettered the conditions of people affected by those crimes and prejudices. After all those homosexuals, kids, women, atheists, etc. are also part of the country. They are also Mauritanians.
I doubt people will watch a movie about someone suffering a crime against his basic human rights and when googled about Mauritania (or the judge) decide it's cool what they are doing. So yes, some attention couldn't be bad.
|
|
|
News
Nov 13, 2020 17:42:50 GMT
via mobile
Post by roverpup on Nov 13, 2020 17:42:50 GMT
My point is that Mauritania has a well earned reputation as an extremely repressive state and this movie shouldn't be used as an attempt to whitewash the crimes that go on in that country by making this person's struggle against a horrible injustice emblematic of this particular country (which has made NO attempt at all to rectify the crimes it commits against its own citizenry).
I am going to hazzard a guess that he wasn't treated the way he was because he was a Mauritanian - he was treated that way by the Americans because he was a Muslim. So why not call the movie "Muslim"? That's the crux of the injustice, isn't it.
Better still, call it by the other two alternatives because that is more on target as to what the movie is supposed to be about.
I just think that calling it "Mauritanian" (and thus bringing into focus his specific nationality) is one that connotes negative associations for me and if they want to make it less so (by the use of that title) then, to me they would have to address those issues (or at least some of them) because anything less smacks of gilding things over.
|
|
|
News
Nov 13, 2020 18:55:47 GMT
Post by sgev1977 on Nov 13, 2020 18:55:47 GMT
I don't think that's fair, roverpup. It's like saying The Mexican from 2001 should had addressed the killing of women in Tijuana (because it was a big issue then) or that Clooney's The American should had been about American interventionism in Iraq.
It's also terrible unfair for those with the nationality. I mean people were rightly angry at Trump for suggesting that Chinese people are responsible for a lot (and there's a lot!) of the wrongdoing of Chinese government. Why it should be different for Mauritanians? Also again victims are also Mauritanians.
|
|
|
News
Nov 13, 2020 19:15:58 GMT
via mobile
Post by roverpup on Nov 13, 2020 19:15:58 GMT
I am NOT saying that all the Mauritanians are to blame for their government's atrocities or wrong doings at all (and to compare what I am talking about is an unfair comparison IMO). I am saying the choice of that title is a very poor one because it doesn't suit the film (hopefully) as well as the other two titles and that title carries negative connotations for ME (and maybe others) because of the long, systematic crimes against humanity that Mauritania participated in (and continues to participate in today). I am NOT calling for a boycott of the film and indeed, I hopefully will be able to go see it myself (because I am very interested in the topic), but I just think it is a stupid choice for a title.
|
|
|
News
Nov 13, 2020 21:51:24 GMT
Post by sgev1977 on Nov 13, 2020 21:51:24 GMT
I know you aren't boycotting it. You are just talking about the title but I don't understand why the name of the country and specifically the nationality should automatically have such a negative connotation. It seems a generalization to me. Maybe if they change the name of the country because the atrocities. I don't know like Rhodasia but the situation was very different there. Rhodasia meant a certain kind of colonialist government that was never widely accepted by it's own citizens. There was a relatively recent huge massacre in Rwanda but I don't think Rwandan should authomatically have a negative connotations. What about richer nations in where those kind of issues are also common? What about Russia, Iran and China?
|
|
|
News
Nov 14, 2020 2:51:44 GMT
Post by onebluestocking on Nov 14, 2020 2:51:44 GMT
I agree that the new title sounds like The Mandelorian. Why do they keep changing names?
|
|
|
News
Nov 14, 2020 3:47:38 GMT
Post by sgev1977 on Nov 14, 2020 3:47:38 GMT
I guess because some audience testing. The funniest part is that it only seems to be happening with Sunny March films so I would blame them! 😉 (Surely it's the distributors, tho.!)
Anyway, Ironbark to The Courier was from an exotic title to the conventional. Guantanamo's Diary to Prisoner 760 to The Mauritanian isn't exactly the opposite but they kind of went increasingly obscure. I would guess that at least the meaning is similar in both cases: The Courier was BC's character alias and I'm guessing Mohamedou Ould was called the Mauritanian by some! Pure guessing, tho.!
Apparently Louis Wain also changed its title. Originally, the script was called The Nine Lives of Louis Wain, then it was "Louis Wain" and, according to IMDb, it's now just called "Louis"!
|
|
|
News
Nov 15, 2020 21:52:03 GMT
Post by mllemass on Nov 15, 2020 21:52:03 GMT
So the name change is official then?
|
|