BEFORE YOU JUDGE.... Banning the film HOTEL MUMBAI from New Zealand release is a ridiculously nonsensical PC move that isn't about respect.

It's about CONTROL...

Before you judge...

https://uk.movies.yahoo.com/hotel-mumbai-pulled-new-zealand-cinemas-terrorist-attack-163118481.html?soc_src=social-sh&soc_trk=fb&fbclid=IwAR3YWO3EOMdaXaj2at01Lo2LtQOfKQQZqBWQ6cSxE0hT6q-E-MW8OS_708E

In what is a total kowtow to PC ridiculousness, a very very fine film from Australian director Anthony Maras and writer John Collee is dropped from NZ cinemas 'out of respect for the mourning'. I doubt that Icon would have pulled the film if a synagogue had got bombed or a church attacked. That having been said and with no agenda other than things that are mutually exclusive, taking this fine film out of cinemas in NZ is going to serve no purpose whatsoever in 'respect' for the dead.

The nigh decade of work involved in getting this film (and so many others) to reality, the millions and millions of dollars from investors and studio, the absolute commitment from actors and craft people that actually managed to get this baby born was hard enough and the fact that it was from a first time major feature director was going to be a hurdle to ever see the light of day in cinemas. The great reception at festivals and solid reviews have given the baby the ability to take steps and start walking when that perception of growth and possibilities are so rare these days when the 'sure thing' is just to slam it into a streaming network (which has been the Godsend for many/most film makers and series creators). To then bypass the cinema experience that is so insanely hard to achieve that to try to attempt to recapture that magic is like the odds of winning Tatts lotto.

Granted, NZ is a small market. The financial pro/con for Icon isn't great but it's a critical market psychologically and from a momentum perspective the difference between potential juggernaut vs. forgotten for any film maker in Australia (or NZ, obv).

But it's not about the money. Do you think, really, anyone who is going to that film (based on tru events surrounding Islamic terrorists attacking the Taj Hotel in India) is going to associate that event directly with the attacks on the mosques in NZ? If anything, the awareness of the problems with both radical Islam and White Supremacists is fodder enough to give the film a chance and have something POSITIVE come out of the experience. The lives and careers of the hundreds of people that worked on that film and spill off of probably thousands others are affected and somewhat or largely dependent on the success or failure of the film.

THE MOVIE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MURDER OF INNOCENT PEOPLE IN NZ. THE MOVIE IS A DRAMA BASED ON THE FACTUAL ACCOUNTS OF MURDERS AND TERROR IN INDIA.

I can understand why Warner Bros. pulled GANGSTER SQUAD and reedited it at the time of the Colorado cinemas shootings because there was a major scene of a machine gun shootout in a cinema IN THE FILM. I still think it was a weak ass move and ultimately hurt the film and weakened the film and certainly didn't bring any of the people killed in the cinema back to life, but I do understand the sympathy of duplicate scenes at that exact time.

But this film, and the events in NZ, are mutually exclusive. Could the shooter have been so inspired by the Islamic attack in India that it triggered him (or exacerbated his hate) to tip him over the edge and plan these attacks? Perhaps in a world of theoreticals. But faux respect and fawning doesn't act as currency. It doesn't pay mortgages. Is DISRESPECTS the living who put their lives, money, and guts out for years to make something real.

So before you judge either way, have another think... If you think it's too harrowing and 'close to home' here is why I believe you allow yourself to cloud the decision:

What is the 'cutoff'?

The (ostensibly) epic Paul Greengrass film JULY 22nd, about Far Right NJ Anders Breivik's murder of 77 people in Norway opened in October on Netflix. Should that have been banned in New Zealand? It's FAR MORE on the mark as a similar event. Was it banned in Norway? (actually, not, and a cinema premiere there took place as a fundraiser---and relatively without tremendous controversy. Exhibiting the film is neither disrespectful nor exploitative. It is confronting. If one lives in Christchurch or directly or indirectly was affected in Christchurch I can see it bringing up pain if someone chooses to see it. But a hell of a lot less pain than those at the Taj Hotel in India experienced. Almost 200 were killed and over 300 injured so if we're keeping score NZ isn't even in the ball game. They come in 3rd behind Las Vegas from last year if it's about body count.

But it isn't... and we're not. That's the whole point.

So why is it that this 'special treatment, irregular and abnormal --is necessary? I get where objection is coming from. I feel for the fact that NZ feels/felt their country was immune from drama, and this is 'their 9/11' in a somewhat analogical way as a friend shared with me. But I don't get sanctuary cities and I don't get the collateral damage of banning films, banning books (NZ Whitcoull's banning Jordan Petersen's 12 Rules for Living) and and ancillary fallout. It sets a bad precedent. It's about CONTROL. It's about making it about something they wish to make it about, rather than what it IS. It makes some people special and others less special. It makes these deaths more sacred than others. And that may be 'right' for some people, but wrong in general. It's a bad road to follow, because ultimately the end of the road is without discourse, feeling, or living with reality.

Before you judge...