The title of this movie is particularly insulting and disrespectful. Its quite interesting an openly homosexual artist would use a derogatory slur for a title of a work exploring ethnic sexual curiosity and social melodrama. I assume this is a result of Mr Ball's own racial and nationalist cultural affinity which he might presume entitles him to show open disrespect to particular figures, including painting the Lebanese father- the Arab male, the Muslim man- to be such an awful boorish lout as to justify Ball's moralizing and bigotry.

In fact judging merely from the review, it seems Ball's bigotry is very consistent with American nationalist and European American/Caucasian sentiments found across the American cultural, religious, and political spectrum. Its born of racial and nationalist entitlement. Caucasian Americans being the predominant race, culture, ethnicity of America and being the world's leading power finds the Towelhead- the Arab/Muslim that resists and fights back to be a threat to American global hegemony. As if by merely defending oneself raises doubts about American, Euro American cultural and moral supremacy.

Its no surprise that American media willingly broadcasts the bodies of Muslim men, women, children, charred, bloodied, dead with much abandon (except for FCC limitations). Even the local news and papers show African American victims' bodies readily, showing more often mug shots of African Americans than European Americans eventhough the latter commit far more crimes. Its tied to a racial national ethos.

But the insulting bigotry is not so significant given that America readily kills, injures, tortures Muslim men, women children on a daily basis, though with some restraint in comparison to past wars of American conquest. Even the Pentagon plays strategic media games with the dead: calling civilians insurgents, calling children combatants, and all kind of fun derivations of the same theme all to devalue and diminish the natural human instinct to be shocked and concerned about an American governmental arm causing the death of other humans.

But they were terrorists or supported terrorists or in the proximity of terrorists or BAD GUYS thus, oh well.

Incidently, Ball often delves into the sexual aspects of social relations in his work. So the Lebanese girl- Arab Muslim female- is open fodder for debauchery when couched in artistry? Theo Van Gogh certainly felt that way. What's wrong with the Caucasian female- she's too familiar for the artist? The artist has to satisfy that ever-exploring male lechery under the guise of artistic intuitive exploration?

Theo Van Gogh was a disgusting man. He insulted women, Jews, Muslims, blacks.

He was racist and misogynistic, and not in a funny. Rather, in a way that employers in the artistic community of the Netherlands fired him because of his ways and found it difficult to work with him.

People live their lives and sometimes the circumstances of their fate are more obvious due to how their lives are lived, or in other words: you reap what you sew.

I used to work in construction. A seasoned leatherneck jack-of -all trades used to make us younger men marvel at his bravado. He used to paint massive steel beams with epoxy paint without using a mask or ventilator. He painted hulls of ships with epoxy tar with a cigarette in his mouth, not a full body suit. To no surprise, as it says on the can on every industrial strength paint: inhalation of this product can cause neurological disorders- my colleague eventually came down with severe neurological disorders which eventually rendered him disabled and severely allergic to even the slightest overspray. It was his life and no foreman or supervisor or even his own brother in law- his employer- or loving sister could tell him what to do. You reap what you sew.

I don't wish injury or harm to people. In fact, when the Prophet Muhammad (saaw) was attacked by the townsfolk of Taif when he visited, he was offered the option to destroy the town or save it. He wished mercy on the people of Taif by chance good could come from future generations.

So perhaps some good can come from Ball's work. But his title and the insinuations of his characters still appear to reenforce bigoted stereotypes still common in America.

Usama2:

The title of this movie is particularly insulting and disrespectful. Its quite interesting an openly homosexual artist would use a derogatory slur for a title of a work exploring ethnic sexual curiosity and social melodrama. I assume this is a result of Mr Ball's own racial and nationalist cultural affinity which he might presume entitles him to show open disrespect to particular figures, including painting the Lebanese father- the Arab male, the Muslim man- to be such an awful boorish lout as to justify Ball's moralizing and bigotry.

The movie's title is not an Alan Ball creation. It is the same as that of the novel in which the film is based, written by Alicia Erian (born to an American mom and an Egyptian dad, thus probably making the main character the author's alter ego). Therefore, following your logic, the accusations in your first paragraph would also apply to Ms. Erian, who is female, straight and probably multi-ethnic. Would her "own racial and nationalist cultura affinity" make her feel entitled "to show open disrespect to particular figures"?

It would be healthy and advisable to check the facts before launching into pseudo intellectual tirades, don't you think?

AC: I didn't find the father to be a flat character or a stereotypical character, but he does demonstrate some Arab male stereotypes. Were you concerned about creating a character who might reinforce negative ideas about Arab men?

AE: I did think about that. I thought, if I write this down, certain parts look stereotypical. But all I could think was, "I'm writing my experience. I apologize if my experience is stereotypical." Everyone says there's a reason why stereotypes exist. They're real sometimes.

Alicia Erian admits her portrayal is a strong negative Arab male stereotype. Ball keeps it. The slur "towelhead" is applicable to Arab Muslim men and women.

I may have just shot from the hip or flown off the cuff attacking Ball, but its still obvious that Ball:

1) includes an open ethnic slur for the title of HIS MOVIE;

2)explores the sexual identity, sexual abuse, and sexual activity of a mixed ethnic girl predominately seen as Arab;

3)includes a negative Arab male character with little redeeming or valued traits at a time when America is at war with "Arab" and "Muslim" men;

4)contributes to his artistic legacy of melodramatically exploring sexual themes- perceived sexual perverse or immoral by many- that are generally unexplored or addressed in mainstream American pop culture.

Erian may be part Arab and have offered an autobiographic story in Towelhead. But Ball runs with it- an obscure novel becomes associated with the Ball franchise.

Did Ball produce this movie at a time when America was at peace? No.

Did Ball produce this movie when America is fighting Chinese? No.

Did Ball produce this movie when SEX and ARAB MUSLIM SENSIBILITIES are now a highly volatile topic for American culture? Yes, ecspecially after the Abu Ghraib scandal.

Ball is entertaining all of this.

Usama2:

Alicia Erian admits her portrayal is a strong negative Arab male stereotype. Ball keeps it.

Erian may be part Arab and have offered an autobiographic story in Towelhead. But Ball runs with it- an obscure novel becomes associated with the Ball franchise.

So, in your view it Ball should have been LESS faithful to the original source in order to spare YOUR sensibilities? Good to know that's part of your evaluation criteria.

Dan:

The film bears Ball's name -- it is therefore entirely appropriate to slam him for his title, regardless of whether he actually coined it or not.

Don't act with the supposition that any work of fiction with a provocative title is always produced as film unchanged. There have been many, many films where a source's title was appropriately shifted. This is a case where that should have happened. Would you be okay with a film called N****r? Clearly not. So why is this different? Because it is "artistic"?

I entirely agree with the initial poster here. A white filmmaker trying to make some kind of "statement" is given a hell of a lot more leeway to veer into nasty territory, than say, a black or arab filmmaker. Yes, Ball quotes here from the source, but that doesn't wash the stain of this title off of his hands.

And to answer your query: YES. He should have changed the title as so not to offend the above and my "sensibilities". To no one is such a title "sensible". Even if you find the title appropriate, it is still far too controversial to not offend. In fact, the entire point of the title is to offend "sensibilities". However, instead of the provocateur he wishes to be, here Ball is instead a fool.

Let me get this straight, morphicpresident: The title was not deemed offensive by Alicia Erian. She chose it for the original novel on which the film is based.

It wasn't deemed offensive by Summer Bishil, she agreed to embody the main character.

It wasn't deemed offensive by Peter Macdissi, who plays the character arguably placed under the toughest scrutiny in the movie.

Both you and Usama2 get hung up on the title while also trying to guess regarding Ball's intentions behind staying fairly faithful to the novel. You can be as "shocked" as you want about it but that points to your own shortcomings, not those of the movie or its director.

Dan, Im obliged to defend by sensibilities regardless of who agrees to offend them.

BTW, Alicia Erian DID agree the slur Towelhead is offensive. Her protagonist was called this in her school. But the tendency of artists to reflect an idea by self effacement, or self denigration, is a commonality in American arts.

But celebrating and accepting this regardless of the consequences in reality is in effect: embracing and accepting the self denigration. This is not healthy or helpful for the vulnerable and weak who are affected by this.

Its correct to compare this slur with the slur ni@$$^r . African Americans allowed this slur to become pervasive and it contributes to a longstanding counterculture of self denigration which is tied to decades of segregation and injustice.

In the face of these realities, the notion of artistic purity- keeping the title the same- or that art is above morality and sensibility, is deficient and deserving to be abandoned.

I have to disagree, Usama2. Your position comes dangerously close to censorship. I've lived through censorship and have no intention of repeating that experience.

You may have the best of intentions when you advocate selective self-censorship, but the net effect of the principle that guides your posts is negative.

I'll keep enjoying my old NWA CDs, and you'll always have the choice of not buying them, along with the choice of changing the station if/when their songs are on the radio.

Cogitationis poenam nemo patitur.

Well, no one mentioned censorship, sir. I also admire the boys straight outta compton, but we are veering off topic here.

It isn't so much that the title need be repealed. The main thrust of "our" argument here is that the slur-as-provocative-title is offensive and unoriginal. It is a cheap emotional ploy wrapped in what we are supposed to feel as satire or wit.

It reminds me a bit of the "conversation about race" the film "Crash" was supposed to engender. Did that ever happen?

The point is, that pop-culture (especially white men) get to offend hoards of people and yet somehow hide under the curtain of "social commentary". Perhaps if it really were the work of a great artist, I could understand such a title. For multi-plex fare though. such a title seems hopelessly pretentious.

I rightly call bullshit in that regard.

morphicresident:

It isn't so much that the title need be repealed. The main thrust of "our" argument here is that the slur-as-provocative-title is offensive and unoriginal. It is a cheap emotional ploy wrapped in what we are supposed to feel as satire or wit.

OK, but then it's merely a descriptive issue with no prescriptive follow-up. In that case, I'd like to know what you and Usama2 want done about it.

morphicresident:

It reminds me a bit of the "conversation about race" the film "Crash" was supposed to engender. Did that ever happen?

It did happen within my social circle. Maybe you're discussing movies with the wrong crowd?

morphicresident:

The point is, that pop-culture (especially white men) get to offend hoards of people and yet somehow hide under the curtain of "social commentary". Perhaps if it really were the work of a great artist, I could understand such a title. For multi-plex fare though. such a title seems hopelessly pretentious.

So, it was OK for a woman of mixed ethnicity to use the term (unless you also wrote similar posts when the book came out) but it's not OK for a white man. Moreover, it would be OK for a great artist but it's not OK for a movie director like Ball. Aside from the fact that there's neither a unanimous definition of what constitutes "great art" nor of who qualifies as a "great artist"; that sounds like a multiple standard. A bit too Si libet, licet for my taste. I'll stick to Lex non distinguitur nos non distinguere debemus instead, thank you.

morphicresident:

I rightly call bullshit in that regard.

You are entitled to it. I could react by joining the brigade of Captain Renault wannabes as you did, and claim to be shocked by that, but I won't bother. I'd rather save my outrage for when it's merited.

Dan210871:

I have to disagree, Usama2. Your position comes dangerously close to censorship. I've lived through censorship and have no intention of repeating that experience.

You may have the best of intentions when you advocate selective self-censorship, but the net effect of the principle that guides your posts is negative.

I'll keep enjoying my old NWA CDs, and you'll always have the choice of not buying them, along with the choice of changing the station if/when their songs are on the radio.

Cogitationis poenam nemo patitur.

My latin is stale. Please translate for us cornpone folk.

Censorship is largely related to government authority used to control content. I don't have government authority by rejecting ethnic bigotry, I'm standing for sensibilities- nay, morality.

Your absolutism is really a form of idealism divorced from reality - extremism if you will. There are very real consequences to absolutism of any kind- wisdom leads to moderation. And moderation means: there's a time for this and a time for that.

In fact, that's what the Prophet Muhammad (saaw) taught.

In reality, the failure to defend and uphold morality and sensibilities results in the deterioration and eventually over time, the extinction of morality and sensibility. Will you listen to NWA while your infant or toddler children are within ear shot? Will you watch XXX porn while your daughters and sons, or mother, are sitting with you?

By the way, even Ice Cube has found moderation and tempered his ways, at least in public.

Usama2:

My latin is stale. Please translate for us cornpone folk.

Cogitationis poenam nemo patitur. = Nobody should be punished for his thoughts.

Usama2:

Censorship is largely related to government authority used to control content. I don't have government authority by rejecting ethnic bigotry, I'm standing for sensibilities- nay, morality.

That's an unnecessarily narrow definition. If censorship were only linked to governmental actions, the term "self censorship" wouldn't make any sense.

Usama2:

In reality, the failure to defend and uphold morality and sensibilities results in the deterioration and eventually over time, the extinction of morality and sensibility.

Maybe so, but the evident questions you are not asking are:

a) Morality defined by whom? and

b) Whose sensibilities?

Clearly, there's no consensus, much less unanimity, when those concepts are discussed.

When you write "by rejecting ethnic bigotry, I'm standing for sensibilities- nay, morality", you neglect to acknowledge that others (Erian, Ball, myself) may not see bigotry where you see it; and that you are standing for morality as you define it, and for your sensibilities. Maybe (just maybe) you could request that they become the norm by proving that your definitions are superior to mine (or Ball's), but so far you haven't done it.

Usama2:

Will you listen to NWA while your infant or toddler children are within ear shot? Will you watch XXX porn while your daughters and sons, or mother, are sitting with you?

Since "Towelhead" is rated R, and one has to choose to go to the multiplex or buy the DVD in order to see it, your analogy only leads a moot point.

Bottom line, if each and every form of expression were only allowed after an exhaustive analysis of everyone who might be offended by it, then we'd probably end up with nothing but elevator music.