Iran Tries To Pacify Protesters With Lord of The Rings Marathon 419
Iranian state television's Channel Two is playing a Lord of the Rings marathon in an attempt to keep people inside watching hobbits and not protesting in the streets. Normally, people in Tehran are treated to one or two Hollywood movies a week, but with recent events the government hopes that sitting through a nine-hour trilogy will take the fight out of most of the protesters. Perhaps this was not the best choice in films if you want your people not to believe that "even the smallest person can change the course of the future."
Re:Drivel (Score:4, Interesting)
LoTR is allowed in Iran? I thought it was too secular, or blasphemous, or something.
This being Slashdot... (Score:1, Interesting)
This being Slashdot, and given the topic that consumes so much of our time these days, my question is...
Since they obviously pulled this out of the hat in a rapid series of decision to help quell the masses, did they properly secure rights to be showing them?
On the other hand ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Perhaps this was not the best choice in films if you want your people not to believe that "even the smallest person can change the course of the future.
On the other hand, it does reinforce the notion that brown people are a fallen race of brutes that are incapable of even the most basic language, let alone organized self-government. If the Iranians start believing that canard, then there goes the revolution.
Then again, JRRT's solution is that a nice little white dude from England will come fix it up for you because he's so damned pure of spirit and incorruptible by evil (hah). Of course, he will bring with him some elves and dwarves (also white), a wizard with the surname "the white" and some other random white dude that claims the right to be King because his daddy was King and he has a nice looking sword (that apparently being a perfectly good reason to assert your right to absolute authority).
Somehow, I don't think the Ayatollahs want that conclusion sinking in either.
Re:Eagles? (Score:4, Interesting)
The history is a little more complex than that: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/s/sauron.html [glyphweb.com]
Re:Wrong movie (Score:2, Interesting)
William Wallace: There's a difference between us. You think the people of this country exist to provide you with position. I think your position exists to provide those people with freedom. And I go to make sure that they have it.
William Wallace: Aye, fight and you may die. Run, and you'll live... at least a while. And dying in your beds, many years from now, would you be willin' to trade ALL the days, from this day to that, for one chance, just one chance, to come back here and tell our enemies that they may take our lives, but they'll never take... OUR FREEDOM!
Re:Drivel (Score:2, Interesting)
Whether and/or the degree to which Tolkien used allegory is a fairly contested subject. Thus the reason i included both secular and blasphemous as possible adjectives. But even if you were right, that would fall under the heading blasphemy from an Islamic perspective.
Re:Drivel (Score:5, Interesting)
Most Iranians love Americans, love Hollywood, etc. They just hate our government.
In that respect, they're a lot like most Americans...
Well, I am an Iranian and I'd say using the word "love" carries a bit of exaggeration. I think Americans are as cool and any other nationalities including Israelite. Actually, my best friends where I live are Americans, not because I love them but because we have common concerns. Also "hate" is exaggeration. I personally see Obama's administration a legitimate thing and his policies seem much wiser than Bush's. And AFAIK most educated Iranians agree with me on those things. In fact as someone else has put, I mostly hate my own governors than those of any other country.
Re:Drivel (Score:3, Interesting)
I think most Americans hate the Iranian government more than theirs, by a lot. I know I do.
Re:Drivel (Score:3, Interesting)
Except many Iranians hold the US responsible, at least in part, for their many government problems they currently experience
Iranians blam the USA for their own government? Let's make sure we have the sequence of events in order:
1: The Carter administration urges the Shah's government to NOT crack down on the fundamentalist uprising.
2: Fundamentalists overthrow the Shah without much opposition because the USA did NOT intervene.
3: Fast forward several decades to: Fundamentalist rule, many times harsher than the mildly harsh Shah, has not only wrecked their economy but also removed pretty much all of even what few rights they had under the previous system.
4: Iranians protest and complain when the USA invades a neighboring ultra-harsh dictatorship and attempts to set up a parlimentary government.
5: Iranians hold responsible, and are mad at, the USA for the fundamentalist rule in Iran?
6: WTF did they really want the USA to do at what point? (There ain't no profit step)
Are they mad at having to wait so long for their turn at liberation? Why wasn't there a counter-revolution back in the 70's before the fundamentalists became so entrenched? Are they mad the Carter adminsitration didn't urge the Shah to violently crack down on the revolution? Wouldn't that be a catch-22: The USA would be the bad guy for beating up on religious freedoms or somesuch. There's just no way to win sometimes.