The Invisible Movie

Hendrik-Jan Grievink
March 4th 2008

As Not Seen On TV

In the Netherlands, there is a raging debate about a movie nobody ever saw. It seems that images have become so powerful, we don't even need them anymore to scare the hell out of us.

The movie we're talking about here is Fitna, a supposed populist right-wing comment by politician Geert Wilders on the upcoming Islam in Europe. The debate is centred around the question wether the dutch government should forbid Wilders to broadcast his movie. There's a lot to be said about this, but I don't want to go into the political side of this story.

What interests me, is what this whole thing says about the position of the image in our society. As we know, images have increasingly become part of our value determining cycle. In the recent past, we have faced examples of how images (i.e. a movie and a series of cartoons) have become the centre of a big debate around the issues freedom of speach vs. freedom to insult, the position of religion in our 'enlightened' society etc.

Dutch Flag Burning
The symbolic outdated the physical
The interesting thing about these examples, is that a lot of people (or say, muslim fundamentalists) never actually saw the products they so passionately condemned. The symbolic value of these products seemed to be bigger than their actual message. But still, we were talking about things you could actually see with your own eyes. If you'd want too. Now, we face another episode in the history of the global image economy. Images no longer have to be visual. The symbolic outdated the physical and rendered visibility obsolete. The image becomes a product of symbolic torture by degrading its viewers to hostages in a global sphere of fear.

The thing is, nobody actually knows if this movie is really being produced or not. The best thing would be if the whole thing would be a hoax. To be honest, I am secretly wishing Geert Wilders would stand up and say: "Hey guys, it was all just a joke. I never even held a camera in my hands". This would be a big practical joke and would probably leave more people contemplating this stupid discussion then when it was OR was not released. Don't agree with me? Watch out, or I'll shoot a movie to harass you! Love and peace or else...

Share your thoughts and join the technology debate!

 

Comments are members only. Login to your account and join the technology debate.

LOGIN
Not a member? Join us

Hemaworstje
Posted 06/03/2008 – 22:09

6 % of the dutch say he makes some sense with some sharp one liners.
He gets media attention for what 40, 50 %.
movie or no movie, who spreads the news?
Who needs flyerboys , who needs flyerboys !
There is no discussion possible about religion,
it is a belief therefore irrational.

=A=
Posted 04/03/2008 – 22:37

As Hendrik–Jan tried to explain; the Wilders-movie is used an example for symbolic values that represent an image or message. However, the text and images he chooses for this post are so much referring to the political side of things that it becomes very hard for us to react on the phenomenon itself and automatically dive into the political discussion. Well of course the discussion should be about the use of symbolism in global image economy and perhaps iconic value of the image. But if we decide to discuss more on this, it is probaby best to not dive into the this–and–thats of this specific news–item and find different examples (like the unseen movie or exceptional architecture) that'll add some value to the exploration of "Next Nature". Otherwise this post could be better off on a different blog.

Koert.com
Posted 04/03/2008 – 21:48

Nowadays, exceptional architecture often wins prizes before the building is finished; their iconic quality is already recognized on the basis of computer models.
Simulations are often more influential, satisfying and meaningful than the things they simulate. The movie is not a movie in the classical sense. As I see it, this post is part of the movie. As well as this comment.
So we have now participated to Mister Wilders agenda and I pity that.

load more

Should men be able to give birth to children?


Koert van Mensvoort: Is the artificial womb frankenstein-like symbol of (male) engineers trying to steal the magical womb from women? Or… is it a feminist project and needed to reach through equality between the sexes? I personally lean towards the latter. To me it feels like progress if a girl can tell a guy to carry the womb for a change.

Join us!
Already a member? Login.