Showing posts with label unedited. Show all posts
Showing posts with label unedited. Show all posts

Tuesday, June 6, 2017

Jerry Springer: Too Hot For TV! (1998 VHS Review!)

It was easily the most coveted video cassette of my seventh grade year. Twenty years later, however, does the infamous VHS live up to all of that junior high hype?


By: Jimbo X
JimboXAmerican@gmail.com
@Jimbo___X

For better or for worse, The Jerry Springer Show defined U.S. pop culture in the late 1990s. At a time when Oprah and Rosie O'Donnell ruled daytime TV, Jerry Springer's unrepentantly trashy talk show came out of nowhere to give squeaky clean, corporate-backed pseudo-wholesome afternoon television a swift kick in the anus. Unlike Geraldo or Sally Jesse Raphael or Ellen or The View, the point of Jerry's show wasn't to fawn and circle jerk over celebrity worship culture or promote some sensational, synthetic-moral guardian alarmist agenda. No, Jerry's program completely abandoned the sociopolitical rabble rousing and shameless Hollywood self-promotional whoring and dropped any pretense of being anything even remotely resembling a journalistic endeavor. Instead, Jerry's show gave Americans what they really wanted to see - a whole bunch of trailer trash and ghetto ass niggaz punching each other in the face 'cause of adultery, sans any sort of attempt to "intellectualize" the senseless violence.

I don't think there has ever been a TV show that's ever failed the old SLAPS test as hard as Springer. There's nothing artistic about watching morbidly obese people whale on each other and God knows what kind of "political" message can be culled from watching dudes with mullets and Jheri curls swing chairs at one another to defend their sister/lover's honor. At least pro wrestling has the fact that everybody knows it's fake working in its favor; if we're using the classical Miller test  as a gage of decency, The Jerry Springer Show pretty much DEFINES what it means to be "obscene" television.

Of course, being the low brow lovin', lowest-common-denominator-footstool-usin' cretins we were in the late 1990s, we just ate up Springer like retarded hippos. The show was getting boffo ratings, with the syndicated series actually beating Oprah's long-running talk show in the Nielsen war. Love it or hate it, Springer had found a winning formula: put a bunch of lower class slobs in front of a studio audience of slightly higher class snobs and convince them to curse, flash their titties, and bonk each other over the head with furniture for an hour. Remember, kids: at one point, this actually WAS the most popular daytime TV show in America, and it wasn't even close

Yeah, I know The Jerry Springer Show is still on the air today, but back in 1998, shit was different. This guy was having mainstream movies made about his program and fucking Congress was trying to open inquiries into whether or not the producers of the show should be arrested. This was a cultural tentpole on par with South Park and Columbine, and its social penetration was impossible to deny. 

So for those of you who didn't grow up during Springer-Mania, the idea of the Too Hot For TV! video special might seem incredibly stupid. However, you have to remember: this was before YouTube, and really, before online video streaming. What you saw on TV was pretty much all you ever got to see unless you ponied up the moolah for a video cassette, and lemme tell ya - for the pre-Intenet age, that damn video was about as big as things got.

Other TV shows, most notably Cops, had already done special edition "Too Hot For TV" videos. However, none of those shows had the immense cultural permeation that Springer had, and his "uncut, unedited, uncensored" video came out at the very zenith of Jerry-Mania. This wasn't just a coveted video, perpetually hawked in late night TV commercials, it may have been the most coveted video of the late 1990s that didn't have the word "sex tape" in it. In my small-ass hillbilly hamlet, every video store in town ordered multiple copies, but what do you know, they were ALWAYS checked out. Short of stealing your mama's credit card and order the tape off a hotline or owning an illegal cable box (though by the time the "tape" was making the PPV rounds, it'd already been in video stores for a couple of months) and with no Internet piracy around to save us all, it was damn near impossible to get your hands on the material. And of course, its unavailability made it all the more mythical, with my lunchroom compatriots passing along all sorts of off-the-wall rumors about the tape's contents (including one kid who told me the tape actually showed a man having sex with a horse ... which I'm pretty sure he got jumbled up with an entirely different Springer show, but whatever.) 

And, as much as I hate to admit it, I never did get around to seeing the tape, even after Springer-Mania tapered off and you could easily amble on in to any Walmart in the country and buy the VHS cassette for $4.99. Still, my mind sometimes wanders off to that inescapable hype from 1998, the kind of pop cultural folk tale that has all but vanished from the face of contemporary society thanks to the presence of the Internet as a universal obscure media aggregator. Lucky for me, though, it isn't too hard to find the special on the Internet - in fact, it's so easy, you can probably find it in one Google search.

So how about you pour yourself a cold beverage of your choice and journey alongside me as we revisit this 20-year-old relic from the absolute apex of trash television? It'll be more fun than a barrel of monkeys, I promise you ... or at least, more fun than a barrel of monkey excrement. Hopefully. 

Alright, we begin with a logo from Real Entertainment. This funky, warbled 1990s alt rock music starts playing over an opening montage of sloppy fisticuffs and craggy bare asses. So yeah, we are off to a rollicking start already. 

The video begins proper with a janitor sweeping up a destroyed set, with chairs and broken table fragments all over the place, like there had just been a Dudley Boys match or something. Jerry stands beside a giant CRT TV and says that a lot of stuff has been cut out of his show - until now. "It's a crazy world," he tells us, "have fun with it."

Which is exactly the same face the TV viewing audience was making at home.

In the first clip, a woman named Tammy says she's slept with all three of her sister's husbands and we waste no time at all before she gets up and yells "you're full of shit" and starts slap fighting with her biological kin like E. Honda. Security restrains them while they yell "I'll fucking kill you" and the guards say "just relax." Naturally, the crowd hoots and hollers like an ECW crowd circa 1995, or a bunch of ghetto high school hoodlums cheering on in-between class fisticuffs. 

The clips aren't really edited together very well, so it feels like they kind of lap over one another. In the next sequence, a woman lets her sister know she's brought three guys from her hometown onto the program who want to date her. The only problem is, her current boyfriend is on the show, too, and as soon as the would-be suitors hit the stage it's time to see some motherfukers get whacked over the head with ... roses? Of course, a total donnybrook ensues and the stage is flooded by security guards in blazers, suspenders and - for some reason - top hats. Meanwhile, petals are fuckin' everywhere, man. I mean EVERYWHERE.

Next scene, a white woman who looks like she works at your bank calls a mulatto woman a bitch and slaps her right on the forehead. For a full-extension backhand popper, that was downright excellent form. Since the mixed-race bitch is literally a bitch, she refuses to fight, cries, runs backstage and says she's going to call the police and the white woman is going to jail.

Next up, we've get these two hillbilly sounding women arguing about an affair and the man meat in their love triangle - who has a Jeff Foxworthy mustache and a mullet - calls the other lover "a little dick head." Of course, he comes out next and the jilted mullet head immediately shoots for a running takedown. There's some brief ground and pound before the guards apprehend Mr. Mullet. The other guy is some blonde Eminem looking metrosexual, and in the most late 1990s moment ever, his wounds are treated by a woman with a short platinum blonde do and tribal tramp stamp.

After that, a dude with a mullet who looks just like mid-1990s Eddie Guerrro gets decked right in the fucking head by some dude who looks like he works an office job and has the word "integrated systems" in his job title. Eh, not much here. Although I did dig the woman with the perm and the checkerboard jacket; I honestly don't remember that shit being fashionable that late into the 1990s.

We get a REAL TREAT, folks, because up next it's a clip from the episode "Holiday Hell With My Feuding Family." Just like professional wrestling, Springer wasn't above a gimmick match every now and then, and this was one of the show's more ingenious. Basically, they replaced the set with a giant dining table, complete with wine, bread sticks, pasta and all the other accouterments of your standard holiday banquet. Naturally, this results in a morbidly obese woman hitting her mama over the head with a turkey leg and her husband engaging in nationally televised domestic abuse by throwing a handful of crowder peas and mashed potatoes in her face. Of course, the audience - many of whom are wearing gaudy Christmas sweaters - roar with approval. These two guys even run across the studio to high five each other, and it is glorious.

One guy tells another guy "don't tell me what to fucking do" and they scuffle for a bit. Nothing too exciting here.

We get a pretty funny moment where the Jerry Springer logo falls off the wall and Jerry picks up the missing letters and says he's now "half the man he used to be."

A woman with giant tits feeds a dude ice cream and then these two guys in flannel shirts wail on each other.

Yet another mulatto woman - this one, wearing lip liner as lipstick - uses the phrase "ax him" instead of "ask him," which has always been one of my biggest verbal pet peeves. As soon as the other woman having sex with her man sits down, she hits her with a hard Mongolian chop to the jugular. They yell "bitch" and "fuck" a lot and wrestle again. A guard tells her to stop flailing her arms and start acting like a lady instead of a "bar room brawler." 

Two old white women shove each other. Yeah, not a whole lot to see here.

A dude who looks like Adam Driver gets slapped by a dude who looks like Ryan Reynolds' retarded older brother. The producers have to break them up during a commercial break. Some really pussy fighting on display here.

Oh, 1998. Back when white skinheads could choke black homosexuals on live television and it was ALRIGHT to cheer. 

Two black women who look like they could be in a really bad TLC tribute act call each other "bitch" and engage in a brief slap fight. One of them responds with perhaps the first truly great putdown of the tape - "you a temporary thing, baby, I'm forever."

"You ain't nothing but a white trash ass stripping wannabe piece of shit," some guy in flannel tells his girlfriend. She slaps him and he calls her "a nutty psycho." She smiles the whole time. So, uh, maybe she's corpsing her way throughout the whole ordeal? Then another Eddie Guerrero looking guy (well no, he looks more like Roman Reigns mixed with Fes from That '70s Show) comes out and hits the flannel guy with about three or four solid body shots. The guards get involved and the other guy LITERALLY kicks the other dude in the ass. A producer in khakis puts one of the dudes in a fucking beautiful side headlock. Then flannel guy Pearl Harbors mullet man with the shittiest running Superman punch you've ever seen. He tells the guard "if you'd leave me alone I'd kick his ass." You know, a lot of people have conjectured about the fights on Springer being faked, but come on, there's no way anybody scripting TV back then could've produced anything this entertaining.

A fat drag queen tells an audience member he looks better than her and has a bigger dick than her boyfriend. "She looks like Marcia Brady after 20 years," another catty and skinnier drag queen comments.

A woman in a cowboy hat and a silver bikini shakes her boobs for a little while. 

The Eddie Guerrero lookalike and short haired office man from earlier have a brief scuffle again. Yawn.

Two skanks that look like extras from Melrose Place get into a brawl and then a black dude with droopy drawers  gets in a blonde woman's face and she slaps him and the guards hold him back.

A black lesbian pulls a white lesbian's hair. The third leg of the fish eating taco love triangle comes out and the brawling doth continue.

Two gay black guys wearing wigs (one is in a hot pink bell shirt) get into a shoving match and then head security guard Steve Wilkos puts one of them in a rear naked choke and it is goddamn hilarious

An angry guy with a mullet (yep, another onesays he's going to rip off another dude's head and shit down his neck but he's leaning back too far and his chair tips over and he falls off the stage and we all LOL, 

Oh hell, now we're really getting to the good stuff. From an episode titled "I'm Proud To Be Racist," the KKK is on stage and a white woman in a black robe (ironic, I know) calls an audience member "a nigger." Then a black dude throws two chairs and there's a near riot on stage but the guards quickly break it up. Then an audience member tries to storm the stage to fight one of the Klanswomen and everybody in the crowd gets nervous as shit. Well, when a Jerry Springer audience is clamoring for peace, you KNOW some serious violence is dangerously close to transpiring. 

More fat white woman are fighting and cursing. One of them insults the other by saying she drinks a bottle of everclear and fucks five guys in one night. This is followed by a "blooper" of an audience member taking the mic and accidentally cramming her ponytail into Jerry's mouth. He blames it on having a "big nose" which may or may not be an allusion to the fact he's Jewish and, as the Mayor of Cincinnati, once used a personal check to purchase hookers. Not that the two can't be mutually exclusive coincidences, of course ... 

More trashy tramps fight, and  there's another pull-apart on stage. There's also this great moment where this fat cow of a woman pops a big boobed stripper looking woman right in the face. Hard

A white woman accuses her black boyfriend of trying to hit on the 16-year-olds and 300-pound fatasses in the green room so she slaps him. Then his mistress comes out so she slaps her. 

Hey remember, the audience member that wanted to fight the Klan woman? Well, she's back as a guest herself and she finally gets a chance to confront that Ku Klux Kunt onstage. Oddly enough, her boyfriend looks JUST like Jake "The Snake" Roberts. The guards, unfortunately, break things up before anything too exciting happens. 

A woman says another woman has a big fat pussy. "How many pets do you have?" Jerry responds. He then does a broken live promo where he jokes about wanting to interview guests who date sheep.

And believe it or not, kids, that's actually the entire video. Of course, Jerry being Jerry, he just has to conclude the tape on something of a psuedointellectual note, so below, you'll find a verbatim transcript of this most special edition of Final Thought (aka, the final part of the show where he tries to say some semi-insightful, flowery things to make up for the last 59 minutes of unabashed mayhem.)

"You know we pride ourselves on showing you from time to time the more outrageous people of our society. Those who are either wildly eccentric or in their  political or social beings, simply defiant of convention. And perhaps none are more eccentric or defiant than the ones we've just shown you. Now, while  none of these lifestyles or manners are particularly ones we would necessarily choose for ourselves, how boring life would be if there was no outrageousness. That is to say, none among us who would push the edges of the envelope. Please understand because we show it does not constitute an endorsement of it or any particular view or behavior any more than reporting a murder on the news or a prime time movie about a rape is an endorsement of those horrors. Look, television does not and must not create values. It's merely a picture of all that's out there - the good, the bad, the ugly. A world upon we which apply our own values learned and nurtured through family, church and experience. Remember, if we only permit the views that only the majority of us hold, then you and I are free only as far as we agree with the majority. If you believe nothing else I ever say in these commentaries I offer at the end of every show, believe this: the politicians or companies that seek to control what each of us watch are a far greater danger to America and our treasured freedom than any of our guests could or ever will be. Until next time, take care of yourself, and each other."

Yeah, it's a pretty smarmy way to end a half hour of trailer trash and ghetto niggaz (or, perhaps, crappy actors pretending to be trailer trash and ghetto niggaz) beating one another up and showing their stretch-mark-covered titties to the world, but hey, this Springer guy - who has now been hosting the program for 25 years - knows not to mess with a winning equation. If all it takes is a minute of half-assed pseudo-intellectual drivel to offset the unabashed exploitation of poor and possibly retarded Americans for cheap, mean-spirited entertainment, I say keeping running with it, Jerry-Boy - the fact you're STILL on the air today is more than enough proof middle America is A-OK with your shtick. 

Barely 30 minutes long, the fabled Too Hot For TV tape doesn't offer a whole lot of content, and considering it was battling stuff like Bum Fights and the first wave of CKY tapes for shock-humor supremacy, all in all you really can't chalk this stuff up as anything but a disappointment. The fights are funny and it's nice hearing all that profanity, but to be frank, there's nothing here that will really make you shake your head and go "yep, now that is some messed up stuff right there." Even by 1998 standards, I don't think the contents herein were all THAT provocative. Of course, our mamas didn't want us watching 'em, but hey, it's not like we were jacking off to Faces of Death, either.

So what sort of historical value does this tape offer to us, citizens of the (current year?) Well, it does a pretty good job showcasing how trashy TV was in the waning days of the analog set years. Nowadays, the amount of sex, violence and obscene language on network TV easily outdoes Springer at its absolute wackiest, and compared to the stuff on cable and premium TV, this shit is woefully subdued. But back then, Springer was pretty much the raunchiest and rudest thing on the airwaves. Irked parents and opportunistic politicians condemned it as an agent of societal decline, and in a way, I guess they were right. Springer was a show that, perhaps inadvertently, opened the flood gates for trashy reality TV to reign supreme, and I wonder just how successful that Dating Naked/Cheaters/The Anna Nicole Show format would've been had the masses not already been inoculated by Springer's antics. Oddly enough, by pandering to the lowest common denominator, perhaps Springer's show made U.S. society - as a collective - more desensitized to depravity and debauchery. I mean, you can only wheel out fist fighting fat girls calling each other "whores" five days a week before it becomes mundane, and there's even a potential argument that Springer's show made America more welcoming of alternative sexual lifestyles. Regardless, Jerry's impact on the American conscience is undeniable, and probably a whole lot more pronounced than most pop cultural historians would ever give him credit for. I mean, the program taught an entire generation that vomit fetishes were a thing - that alone entitles the show to enshrinement in the Smithsonian some day. 

And this, I guess, represents a sort of encapsulation of the essence of The Jerry Springer Show. By now there has to be literal years worth of taped Springer content, and factoring out all his boring ass pre-fisticuffs daytime talk stuff, what you see in Too Hot For TV is pretty much what Springer's been serving us nonstop for 20-some odd years. Two hundred years from now - long after a solar flare has wiped out all our precious digital archives - somebody can pop in this ancient video cassette and INSTANTLY grasp the appeal of the program to the plebs of 1998. It had cursing and punching and people yelling and fatties flailing at each other and in the middle of it all, this ex-country singer Jew in an unremarkable tuxedo playing ringmaster for our carnival of lower class violence and making a shit ton of money off it. 

And if that doesn't sum up the American media consumption landscape in the late 1990s, I honestly don't know what does...

Friday, November 16, 2012

In Defense of "Innocence of Muslims"

There’s no denying that the hyper-controversial movie is crude, stupid and highly offensive…but is that really enough to warrant worldwide censorship?



On June 23, 2012, a film called “Innocence of Bn Laden” (apparently, the extra “i” in “Bin” went over the Kinkos budget) was screened at the Vine Theater in Los Angeles, to an audience of allegedly 10 people. And unbeknownst to that scant crowd, they’ll probably be the only folks in history to get a look at the full version of what has come to be known as “Innocence of Muslims”, i.e., “That One Movie That’s Pissed Off A Whole Lot Of People Over There in The Middle East.”

Even before the condensed version of the film went viral on YouTube, it’s history was pretty darn bizarre. The first sighting of the film came in the form of advertisements that somehow made it into the pages of Arab World, perhaps the Los Angeles area’s most circulated Muslim-targeted entertainment industry trade magazine. According to the Los Angeles Times, the ads caught the attention of some fellows over at the Anti-Defamation League, but since they couldn’t read Arabic, they decided to just live and let be.

The crew supposedly filmed the movie on a one-day shoot at the Blue Cloud Ranch, for a somewhat paltry $1,195.00 USD. It’s primary backer was Media for Christ - a Duarte, Calif.-based nonprofit that, obviously, has tried to move heaven and earth in order to distance itself from the incendiary production - who say that they were duped into laying down money for some religious-themed action movie called “Desert Warriors.” A second screening of the film was scheduled for June 30, but according to an expert eyewitness - a Vietnam Veteran who told the L.A. Times that he slipped ads for the screening at various mosques in the area, with the hopes of most likely beating up whoever came out of the theater afterward - not a single soul showed up for the presentation.

And then, some dude named “Sam Bacile” uploaded a poorly edited 13-minute digest of the film to YouTube, and the rest, as the say, is history. And also, 75 dead people and counting, but hey, who’s really keeping score here?

By now, we’ve come to fill in most of the blanks regarding the film’s origin. We know the primary financier of the film was some dude named Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, an Egyptian-born Coptic Christian who, over the last three decades, has been busted by the feds for everything from intent to manufacture meth to bank fraud to stealing the identity of a six-year-old child. We know that the actors involved in the film were totally duped by the filmmakers, who ended up dubbing over their dialogue to include references to Muhammad, Allah and the Quran without their knowledge. But what we don’t know - and may possibly never, ever know - is what happened to the full version of the film, which was said to have been at least 70 minutes long. At this point, it looks like “Innocence of Muslims” - by the way, a media-bestowed title and not an official one, in any regard - has officially joined movies like the original cut of “Greed” and Jerry Lewis’ “The Day the Clown Cried” in the pantheon of legendary “lost films.”

You’ve probably seen the clip on YouTube by now, but if you haven’t, here’s my condensed look at the condensed movie:

The film begins with a doctor’s family being attacked by an angry mob, who ransack the doc’s clinic (in what is easily one of the poorest green screen jobs you’ll ever see) and hack women upside the head with plastic axes. Prior to that, some unnamed general talks about how had Muhammad had 60 plus wives, and how he himself would kill his wife and “steal her medicine” if she became ill.


From there, we learn that the doctor’s family is Christian, and by golly, all them Egyptian forces sure are persecuting them extra hard today. Following some of the absolute clumsiest editing you’ll ever bare witness to, the doctor draws an equation on a dry-erase board explaining how “Muhammad” is the great variable in terrorist activity. Of course, everyone has had their voices dubbed over, and horrendously. If you recall that one episode of “South Park” after Isaac Hayes left, you’ll have a pretty good idea of what audio atrocities await you here.

Then, we get to the stuff that may be considered just slightly offensive to members of the Islamic faith. “Muhammad” is introduced as this thin white guy with long hair - think, an anorexic Conan the Barbarian - who is called both “the unknown father” and “the bastard” by his family. He lays in the lap of a woman, who keeps asking him if he “sees the devil” between her thighs, which is followed up by a quick cut to “Muhammad” labeling a donkey as “the first Muslim animal.”

After that, one of “Muhammad’s” handlers says that he will make a “book” for him, consisting of various parts of the New Testament, the Torah and some flat out lies. Then, we see “Muhammad” as a gang leader, who advocates pillaging, raping and all sorts of perverse child abuse. A few parallels are drawn between Muhammad’s campaign and the Jews’ conquest of Jericho, which devolves into a segment in which not only is “Muhammad” accused of being a child predator, but a H-O-M-O. And if that isn’t enough for you, two of his underlings even debate whether or not he’s a “top” or “bottom,” too.

Then, we see an old lady get ripped apart by horses, because she called “Muhammad” a caravan robber, an oppressor and a tyrant. Following that scene, a dude is killed in front of his wife (once again, an all Caucasian cast on display here), which is capped by a sequence in which “Muhammad” is beat up by two women after some sort of three-way sexual escapade. The film concludes with a blood-soaked “Muhammad” staring into the screen…in essence, the audiovisual equivalent of telling the really, really unstable kid back in the third grade that his mother was a whore, his father was a transvestite and that his breath smelled like various shades of animal anus.

It’s pretty easy to see why so many Muslims would take offense to that. In fact, it’s very, VERY easy to see that. The big question moving from here, however, is whether or not the film has the RIGHT to exist, solely as religiously-anchored agitprop.


So far, the movie has been banned in Egypt, Libya, Indonesia, Malaysia, India, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Singapore, with efforts currently underway to ban the film in Russia, Brazil and Turkey. After the suits at Google refused to take the video of YouTube, the governments of Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Sudan responded in kind by simply blocking ALL of YouTube from its national Intraweb. Even members of the Obama Administration are reported to have asked Google to “reconsider” hosting the videos, if that wasn’t Orwellian enough for you. There’s no denying that “Innocence of Muslims” is offensive and stupid and poorly made, but is that really enough reason to attempt to eradicate it from the face of the earth like it was rinderpest or something?

Well, ya’ll know me, and I’m one First Amendment-loving mother-lover. Not only do I think the guaranteed right to free expression is the absolute best thing about America (umm, when it’s allotted, anyway), I would say it’s pretty much the ONLY truly, 100 percent, unequivocally, indisputably great thing about the US of A as a whole. Just try looking at the libel laws in Canada and the U.K, and the staggering number of films banned in such liberal progressive utopias as the Netherlands and Norway, and you’ll see just how much more expressive freedom we have as Americans than any other peoples on Earth. Much more than any other right - the right to healthcare, the right to economic equality, the right to employment, the right to housing, and all of that other jazz we’ll never really have - I value my First Amendment right to say whatever I want, no matter how stupid, illogical, irrational and offensive more than any other liberty. As long as I have mostly unfettered expression as a citizen, I could probably put up with all of the other crap going on in the country, and rather happily, too.

And then, along comes something like “Innocence of Muslims,” and things get all sticky and problematic for everybody. Now, the U.S. Constitution says you’ve got the right to say pretty much whatever you want, barring three exceptions: it’s a threat to national security, it’s obscene (and woo boy, the fun we could have discussing the ridiculously subjective nature of that little tidbit) or a direct public threat to at least one or more individuals. Hell, the Supreme Court even ruled earlier this summer that, technically, lying was constitutionally protected speech, so there ya’ go right there.

Clearly, in the hands of easily frightened reviewers, “Innocence of Muslims” could  be considered a national security threat (well, no shit there, Sherlock) but whether or not it’s truly obscene is in the eye of the beholder. Seeing as how the film has SOME inkling of artistic and political merit, it passes the SLAPS test rather facilely, and the film, while definitely aimed to piss off, doesn’t make any direct, physical threats to any specific, identifiable peoples.

With that in mind, the grounds for censoring the film - in accordance to the presupposed, U.S. Constitution definition of expressive freedom - can only exist in a vacuum in which the film itself is considered a security risk that MUST be suppressed in order to prevent vindictive retaliation from some foreign presence. It’s a film intended to agitate a population known for extreme behavior, no doubts there, but is that REALLY enough of a reason to contemplate banning the video outright?

I say no, for several reasons. First of all, just about EVERYTHING can be considered offensive to a certain population, even something as innocuous, domestically, as giving another individual a “thumbs up” of appreciation. Displaying an image of Muhammad as a wife beater and a chi-mo is certain to infuriate a couple of lunatic fringe Islamists, but in case you haven’t noticed, it’s only a small portion - as in, proportionally, about the same percentage of Christians that blow up abortion clinics and try to keep Martin Scorsese movies from playing at the local cinema here in America - of the Arab World that’s instigating such acts of violence supposedly inspired by the movie. Call me a cynic, but I don’t necessarily think that the film itself was what directly inspired such acts of mayhem and murder; in essence, these are people that have wanted to commit acts of widespread homicide for quite some time, and “Innocence of Muslims” only served as a convenient excuse for the periodic uncapping of said murderous rage.


A secondary reason as to why the film shouldn’t even be in the running for censorship is that it PROMOTES domestic civility. Yeah, you heard me right, I said “promotes” civility. How? Because it’s an artistic, non-violent form of political activity, that’s why. As dumb and offensive as a lot of politically-motivated folks are here in the U.S., we can at least take comfort in knowing that their stupid and offensive behavior is limited to inane blog posts and empty, non-nondescript threats on YouTube. All in all, I’d much rather have some wacko burn copies of the Quran to display religious contempt than having some other wacko drive a truck bomb through a restaurant, so the next time you hear someone bemoan the “wretchedness” of Fred Phelps or Louie Farrakhan, just remind yourself that at least they’re expressing their hostilities with words as opposed to pipe bombs.

And lastly, I parrot the words of a guy I never thought I’d by quoting for any legitimate reason, because if the film IS banned, that means the terrorists have indeed won. By appeasing a loose string of religious fundamentalist maniacs, that’s practically cultivating violent activity as a sure-thing in the future, because it demonstrates that targeted, violent acts WORK as modules and methods of obtaining prior restraint against politically, religiously and culturally dialectic opinions. “If you blow us up,” the message there is, “then you’ll get exactly what you want out of us.” Now, let’s just see how far that little strategy goes in preventing acts of ethnocentric violence in the future.

At the end of the day, there’s no denying that “Innocence of Muslims” is but an attempt to rattle the monkey cages, but guess what? It’s an attempt to rattle the monkey cages that’s decisively non-violent, non-oppressive and ultimately, non-hurtful (directly, anyway) to anyone. It’s crude and stupid and pretty thoughtless, but in those Bizarro qualities, I think you’ll find everything you need to in order to defend it as an artistic vision.

Hey, I’d rather watch a movie that blows than get blown up, any day…