The World Thru My Eyes - I speak my mind and man does it like to talk.
A review of a movie I wish I had not seen
Published on July 18, 2007 By CharlesCS In Politics
If you read the subtitle I’m sure you’re wondering why I would place a movie review in the politics category. That’s simple; once I tell you the title it should all become clear. Though I can say with assurance that the only reason I am writing this review is because it was so bad I just had to point it out. Beware of movie spoiler beyond this point.

Looking for Comedy in the Muslim World

That is the title of the movie. A “brilliantly incisive and flat-out hilarious” movie according to Jeffrey Lyons of NBC TV (I wonder if we both saw the same movie). A new film from Albert Brooks (the voice of Marlin the Clown Fish from Finding Nemo) where Albert Brooks stars as himself searching for his next big break in the movie industry. Failing to find anyone willing to take a chance with his “unique brand of comedy”, he finds himself being summoned by the US Gov’t to be part of a new Commission whose sole mission is to find new tactics in their effort to “understand and relate” with the Muslim world during these difficult times. While spying and fighting have not been very effective, Albert is asked to travel to India and Pakistan with the sole intent of finding out what makes Muslims laugh. He would write a 500 page report explaining what Muslims find funny, what makes them laugh, what tickles their fancy. The 4th choice as the American comedian representative of the US for this mission (the first 3 choices were busy working), Albert accepts the position and sets off with his 2 American assistants on an adventure of a lifetime to a foreign, but well known thru the media, world.

In the process of “doing a great service for his country”, he finds himself sifting thru several, several unqualified candidates for a secretary position until he hits the jackpot with a 6 language speaking, 135 wpm typing, short-hand writing in her sleep, very smart, pretty and nice Hindu girl eager to learn about American comedy. Eventually he finds his ways thru the cities of India trying to ask Muslims and Hindus alike what makes them laugh but not getting much too even fill his first of 500 pages. He then comes up with an idea to do a stand-up comedy show in a country where there are no comedy clubs. To make a long story short he barely succeeds in getting a couple of giggles from the audience and the find out from his assistants that his trip to Pakistan is a no go due to problems with his passports. But his assistants try to get him a chance to still get what he needs from Pakistan and set up an illegal rendezvous with some underground Pakistani comedians. In the process of asking questions to people in the streets, making a comedy show and crossing the border illegally, Albert is unaware that he is creating an international conflict between the Gov’ts of Pakistan and India because they are both wondering why is there an American who claims to be working for the US Gov’t going around asking questions to average people in the streets, crossing borders illegally and meeting with officials from the TV station Aljazeera. Due to the confusion and unawareness of what the Gov’t of the other side is up to, both Pakistan and India begin to build up their forces along the border where Albert crossed illegally. Eventually, completely unaware of what is happening and that Albert is the cause of it, the Gov’t of the US decided that things are no longer safe for high profile Americans in those countries and instruct Albert and his assistants to return home for their safety. Conflicts between the 2 militaries at the borders break out while an unaware Albert celebrates Christmas and a partially successful mission with his family. Eventually both countries realize that it was Brooks the cause of their conflicts and the fighting subsides.

My thoughts on the movie:

The first thing that comes to mind? It sucked. The movie had enough comedy to make a single person in the world laugh, probably of ignorance. I was expecting a documentary. I thought it would have been great to see a side of the Muslim world not portrayed on TV before. Considering that about 90% of the information we get about Muslims (from the TV, newspapers, radio and the internet) is mostly about death, destruction and how much they hate us; it seemed like a great opportunity to see the “softer side” of the Muslim world. A side most Americans, who are not interested or were not interested in ‘till this war in Iraq, have not seen. I wanted to find more information to show that the word Muslim does not necessarily relate to death and destruction as the media portrays it. I was disappointed to find out that the movie was actually just that, a movie. A really, bad movie. The only reason I watched the whole thing was to be able to write this article and to see what would happen at the end. And the only reason I am writing this article is because it was so bad I just had to put it out there. I find it hard to believe this was the same person who did the voice of the father Clown Fish in Finding Nemo, one of my favorite movies.

This movie, however, made me wonder just how realistic this idea can be. Here we are, as a nation, finding ourselves trying to figure out how to get along with a group of people whose radical extremist counterparts have hijacked their religion and have made the average American person believe we are at war with the entire religion. Why not try to find common ground? Why not try to find out what makes them laugh? Why not try to relate to them? I said one thing before on another blog I wrote, our Gov’t lacks compromise between the politicians. It seems that our Gov’t also lacks compromise when it comes to the international community. Why do these people hate us so much? (I have not done my homework so am not too familiar with how this al started) Is there some kind of compromise that we can do to halt, or at least slow down, the constant fighting and attacks? Is the reason for our conflict too big and dangerous that nothing less than the destruction of Israel and the West will satisfy our current primary enemy? If so, why are we even bothering trying, even if only for the sake of saying at least we tried?

So many questions, not enough, if any, answers. The strangest movie I have ever seen; it made me wonder if anyone could ever find comedy amongst so much death and destruction. Is comedy the solution we have struggled so hard to find or is the difference between our cultures so far apart that even something as simple as a laugh (considered a universal language by many) is as different as apples and oranges, between our worlds? In the end I am only left with more questions and still no answers.

I don’t recommend this movie as entertainment, but it’s an interesting way to see what people in India and Pakistan would think is funny if it were an actual documentary like I thought it was. BTW, I find it a bit annoying when worn out comedians like Albert Brooks try to find comedy in their misfortune by making fun of the fact that they can’t find jobs in the real world during a film made by themselves.

Comments
on Jul 18, 2007
(the voice of Marlin the Clown Fish from Finding Nemo)


I find it hard to believe this was the same person who did the voice of the father Clown Fish in Finding Nemo, one of my favorite movies.


I know Brooks did his best work in the '70s, but I find this sad.

(Brooks trivia: His real name is Albert Einstein. His brother is "Super Dave Osborn," a.k.a. David Einstein.)


I was expecting a documentary.


Don't you think that was perhaps your biggest problem with the film. I know when I go in expecting one thing from a film and it turns out to be something else, I usually dislike the film, no matter how good it may otherwise be. (I think this is the real problem people had with the second Star Wars trilogy as well.) It's a form of prejudicing ourselves against a film (because we've pre-judged it to be something else) before we even see it. Many times I'll be able to go back to a film later and see it for what it is and appreciate it on its own terms. (Jerry Macguire and Tron come to mind in that regard.)
on Jul 18, 2007
I tried to watch that movie but ended up turning it off because it was sooo freakin' boring.
on Jul 19, 2007

I know Brooks did his best work in the '70s, but I find this sad.

(Brooks trivia: His real name is Albert Einstein. His brother is "Super Dave Osborn," a.k.a. David Einstein.)


I was born in '76 so chances are I know nothing from hims except Finding Nemo.


Don't you think that was perhaps your biggest problem with the film. I know when I go in expecting one thing from a film and it turns out to be something else, I usually dislike the film, no matter how good it may otherwise be. (I think this is the real problem people had with the second Star Wars trilogy as well.) It's a form of prejudicing ourselves against a film (because we've pre-judged it to be something else) before we even see it. Many times I'll be able to go back to a film later and see it for what it is and appreciate it on its own terms. (Jerry Macguire and Tron come to mind in that regard.)


Maybe you are right but I did allow myself to watch the movie once I realize it was a movie (I figured it out within the first 15 minutes) hoping it would still be a funny movie. Like a Jim Carey movie maybe. But, like TW says:

it was sooo freakin' boring.


But I watched it anyways so that I could write this article. It just wasn't funny. I couldn't help thinking I was watching Finding Nemo because of his voice, it just stands out so much. But the guy just wasn't funny. Even Tom Green was funny in the first Charlie's Angels movies compared to Albert, and I can't stand Tom Green, he sucks.
on Jul 19, 2007
Islam forbids laughter.

Didn't you know that? (snicker-)


You should see the movie then. There's a scene where Albert goes to some kind of prayer group to ask them what makes them laugh. There are all kinds of people there, Hindu, Muslim and others and the prayer was based on laughing.
on Jul 20, 2007
Well, I must be doing something right to be getting so many featured articles. Or am I in a Democratic position where I'm not really good, it just that everyone else is bad?
on Jul 21, 2007
Why not try to find common ground? Why not try to find out what makes them laugh? Why not try to relate to them?

Great article, Charles.

Not only do we Not trying to do any of that, but we actually insult them and say it is" our freedom" to say and do what we like regardless.

Why do these people hate us so much? (I have not done my homework so am not too familiar with how this al started) Is there some kind of compromise that we can do to halt, or at least slow down, the constant fighting and attacks?

Great, and fundamental question that no one is seriously trying, just trying to answer or even get help in answering it.

The sad fact is that it is a simple answer. the MAJOR problem is no one is willing to accept the answer. It reflects our hyporisy and shows our bias. Simply put it is our governments' POLICIES.

In a recent thread, i really forgot where, someone said "when terrosists speak listen to them". The problem is, as usual, we only listen to what we want to support our bias and ignorance.

and what do the terrorists say? they say two things the second is conditional on the first:

(You, they mean the west and USA in particular, are occupying our land and killing our people and robbing our resources, leave and dont support our corrupt rulers. IF you dont we will kill you as you killing us and make you live in fear and poverty as you making our people live in fear and poverty)

This is what they say. Their videos repeat that many times. And whenever anyone tries to point that they accuse him.her of propagating what the terrorists say. (and i am sure they will say that about this too .... but you asked).

Look closely at what they are saying and examine it against what the west and the USA did and are doing then judge for yourself.

Just something to think about for all who are truth-averse and portray the problem as "spreading Islam" and "making us live under their tyranic Sharia" and "they hate our way of life" and all the rest. Think about this:

if that was the case, why aren't they, the terrorists, attacking China, Japan, South Ameican Countries, Korea ...etc.Terrorism is mostly concentrated towards Europe and USA. Why is that?

They have more religious reason to attack china and japan, so why aren't they?

It is our policies, just think about it.

I dont know if there is a compromise here, You cant be sort-of-occupier. Can you? either we leave or not. either we deal with them on equal footing like we deal with, say china or we just continue to control their resources. I guess we could just withdraw our support from those leaders. That is the only half-way measure i can see.

They dont have military power (their military is controlled by the corrupt rulers we support) to fight a standard war and that is why the extremists among them said, to hell with everybody. we will fight anyway we can. It is vicious and fanatical but that is the only way they think they have. why dont they, those same terrorists, try to change their rulers even if we support them? that is a big question. All i can say here is this: they tried many times and failed due to the support we give to their rulers. Why dont they keep trying? that is another good question. may be they will. The fight has just begun. who knows what will happen eventually?
on Jul 21, 2007
is the difference between our cultures so far apart that even something as simple as a laugh (considered a universal language by many) is as different as apples and oranges, between our worlds? In the end I am only left with more questions and still no answers.

Not really, not at all that much difference. It is the policies not the culture. In fact they are very funny and have a great since of humor. They displayed that humor in many ways amid the worst periods of their history,. Mostly they laugh at themselves and their culture.
on Jul 23, 2007
Great article, Charles.

Not only do we Not trying to do any of that, but we actually insult them and say it is" our freedom" to say and do what we like regardless.


I agree that we do tend to abuse the freedoms we have. It's kinda like an argument I had with my wife yesterday at her moms house where she was saying that there are some people who complain to her about her talking Spanish around them during her break. Her friends tell her to pay no mind to them she has the right to speak Spanish if she wants too. I told her that it depends, if you are doing it inside of the building the company may have a policy restricting talking anything other than English. Either way if they didn't I told her that it is very rude to talk Spanish around people who do not understand. If you have nothing to hide you need to speak in other languages, it is rude and disrespectful to do it on purpose. That's my sentiment, she didn't say a word. She knew I was right. I find it ok to talk anywhere outside of you work place, I don't care what people think out side, but inside the work place, you have to be in good terms with your fellow co-workers in order to be able to have a good work environment. Getting people upset because you are speaking in another language is just childish and bad for the work place. But that's just my opinion.

Great, and fundamental question that no one is seriously trying, just trying to answer or even get help in answering it.

The sad fact is that it is a simple answer. the MAJOR problem is no one is willing to accept the answer. It reflects our hyporisy and shows our bias. Simply put it is our governments' POLICIES.


That was my point, I don't believe we are trying hard enough. We want to be right all the time so bad that we will always try to portray them as the bad guys when in reality we could be the ones responsible for all of this.

In a recent thread, i really forgot where, someone said "when terrosists speak listen to them". The problem is, as usual, we only listen to what we want to support our bias and ignorance.

and what do the terrorists say? they say two things the second is conditional on the first:

(You, they mean the west and USA in particular, are occupying our land and killing our people and robbing our resources, leave and dont support our corrupt rulers. IF you dont we will kill you as you killing us and make you live in fear and poverty as you making our people live in fear and poverty)

This is what they say. Their videos repeat that many times. And whenever anyone tries to point that they accuse him.her of propagating what the terrorists say. (and i am sure they will say that about this too .... but you asked).


Considering our position you would think that listening would be our first priority but in reality we are just looking for those few words that will give us the excuse to portray them as bad people. I will be honest, I don't like the idea of them having us in constant fear, I don't like the fact that they are willing to go the distance to kill us. As long as my life and that of my children is in danger I will always believe them before us. The fact that I see hardly any evidence to convince me that they are willing to try other methods besides killing to solve this problem is enough for me to feel in the same matter as they do about us. Faced with this kind of feeling I will not sit here and hope common sense will take over and things will change. I will continue to expect force to be used when necessary as long as they deem it necessary to use force on us.

if that was the case, why aren't they, the terrorists, attacking China, Japan, South Ameican Countries, Korea ...etc.Terrorism is mostly concentrated towards Europe and USA. Why is that?

They have more religious reason to attack china and japan, so why aren't they?

It is our policies, just think about it.


Well I would have to say if they are smart enough they would know how to pick and chose they enemies. I would not want to piss off a country like China who may not think twice about shooting a bomb first asking questions later. I don't believe that countries like China have policies similar to our in the sense of not retaliating equally of twice as hard back if attacked. Just look at the messes they have in many of the Mislims countries where they are fighting each other using the methods, no holds bar.
on Jul 23, 2007
Great article, Charles.

Not only do we Not trying to do any of that, but we actually insult them and say it is" our freedom" to say and do what we like regardless.


I agree that we do tend to abuse the freedoms we have. It's kinda like an argument I had with my wife yesterday at her moms house where she was saying that there are some people who complain to her about her talking Spanish around them during her break. Her friends tell her to pay no mind to them she has the right to speak Spanish if she wants too. I told her that it depends, if you are doing it inside of the building the company may have a policy restricting talking anything other than English. Either way if they didn't I told her that it is very rude to talk Spanish around people who do not understand. If you have nothing to hide you need to speak in other languages, it is rude and disrespectful to do it on purpose. That's my sentiment, she didn't say a word. She knew I was right. I find it ok to talk anywhere outside of you work place, I don't care what people think out side, but inside the work place, you have to be in good terms with your fellow co-workers in order to be able to have a good work environment. Getting people upset because you are speaking in another language is just childish and bad for the work place. But that's just my opinion.

Great, and fundamental question that no one is seriously trying, just trying to answer or even get help in answering it.

The sad fact is that it is a simple answer. the MAJOR problem is no one is willing to accept the answer. It reflects our hyporisy and shows our bias. Simply put it is our governments' POLICIES.


That was my point, I don't believe we are trying hard enough. We want to be right all the time so bad that we will always try to portray them as the bad guys when in reality we could be the ones responsible for all of this.

In a recent thread, i really forgot where, someone said "when terrosists speak listen to them". The problem is, as usual, we only listen to what we want to support our bias and ignorance.

and what do the terrorists say? they say two things the second is conditional on the first:

(You, they mean the west and USA in particular, are occupying our land and killing our people and robbing our resources, leave and dont support our corrupt rulers. IF you dont we will kill you as you killing us and make you live in fear and poverty as you making our people live in fear and poverty)

This is what they say. Their videos repeat that many times. And whenever anyone tries to point that they accuse him.her of propagating what the terrorists say. (and i am sure they will say that about this too .... but you asked).


Considering our position you would think that listening would be our first priority but in reality we are just looking for those few words that will give us the excuse to portray them as bad people. I will be honest, I don't like the idea of them having us in constant fear, I don't like the fact that they are willing to go the distance to kill us. As long as my life and that of my children is in danger I will always believe them before us. The fact that I see hardly any evidence to convince me that they are willing to try other methods besides killing to solve this problem is enough for me to feel in the same matter as they do about us. Faced with this kind of feeling I will not sit here and hope common sense will take over and things will change. I will continue to expect force to be used when necessary as long as they deem it necessary to use force on us.

if that was the case, why aren't they, the terrorists, attacking China, Japan, South Ameican Countries, Korea ...etc.Terrorism is mostly concentrated towards Europe and USA. Why is that?

They have more religious reason to attack china and japan, so why aren't they?

It is our policies, just think about it.


Well I would have to say if they are smart enough they would know how to pick and chose they enemies. I would not want to piss off a country like China who may not think twice about shooting a bomb first asking questions later. I don't believe that countries like China have policies similar to our in the sense of not retaliating equally of twice as hard back if attacked. Just look at the messes they have in many of the Muslims countries where they are fighting each other using the methods, no holds bar.
on Jul 24, 2007
The fact that I see hardly any evidence to convince me that they are willing to try other methods besides killing to solve this problem


I think we should at least try to make it clear that we are not after their resources and we can withdraw our support for their corrupt leaders. Cant we "safely" do that? we can also try to make it clear that we are not interested in keeping bases on their land. if all this doesnt get results and stop or significantly reduce the violence, then we can legitimately do what we see fit. But if you take history as a guide look at what they did when France occupied Algeria. It was almost like what we see against us now. once France (under De Gaul in particular) started making it clear that they will leave, violence stopped. Actually now, both countries (and people) are having great relations. same with Vietnam and us. Do they fight us now? dont we have great trade and other kinds of relations now? It is the same thing.

If you study the history of the main terrorist organizations, they actually started LOCALLY against THEIR leaders. but as i said in my first comment, they failed to achieve any progress because of our support to their leaders. Omar AbdelRahaman and AlZawahry are fugitives from Egypt because their terror started there. Bin Laden is a fugitive of Saudia Arabia for the same reason. All current terrorist organizations were born from the Muslim Brotherhood movement established in Egypt in 1920's to fight the English occupation. History is a great teacher, if we just learn.

If we listen, study and think we will find a way to eliminate and defeat that terror. I believe leaving their land and withdrawing our support from their corrupt leader while guaranteeing Isreal's security will not endanger our interest at all in that area and in a very short time we can have mutually-beneficial relations with all countries there.

on Jul 24, 2007


I think we should at least try to make it clear that we are not after their resources and we can withdraw our support for their corrupt leaders. Cant we "safely" do that? we can also try to make it clear that we are not interested in keeping bases on their land. if all this doesnt get results and stop or significantly reduce the violence, then we can legitimately do what we see fit. But if you take history as a guide look at what they did when France occupied Algeria. It was almost like what we see against us now. once France (under De Gaul in particular) started making it clear that they will leave, violence stopped. Actually now, both countries (and people) are having great relations. same with Vietnam and us. Do they fight us now? dont we have great trade and other kinds of relations now? It is the same thing.


Totally agreed.