The Ridley Scott film, “Exodus,” is being banned in countries across the Middle East. The film, which has been criticized widely for its whitewashing, has now been pulled in Morocco, Egypt and the UAE. However, the reasons being given for the film’s ban all seem to be different.
For instance, in Egypt the Cultural Minister Gaber Asfour said he had issues with it being a “Zionist film” which showed Egypt’s Jewish community building the pyramids, something Egypt says is far from the truth and promotes a Zionist agenda.
In the UAE, Director of Media Content Tracking at the National Media Council, Juma Obeid Al Leem, lambasted the film for misrepresenting Islam and the other religions the film portrays.
In Morocco, different film houses were told personally that the film should not be screened because it contains a scene where God is represented by a child during a conversation with Moses. Depictions of God are forbidden within Islam. However, this decision came after it was let through by Moroccan authorities. In an interview with AFP some film house owners and distributors were told by phone that they had to pull the film immediately. Some were incensed by the news, with one telling reporters, “I hate censorship.” Yet most cinema managers agreed to respect the decision by the Moroccan Cinema Centre.
“Exodus” has come under much scrutiny around the world not only because of the way it presents the ancient world, but the actors who were chosen to play the parts. Despite the movie taking place in ancient Egypt, the actors and actresses portraying the characters are almost all white. Christian Bale plays Moses, while Joel Edgerton plays the Pharaoh Ramses, Sigorney Weaver plays Queen Tuya and Aaron Paul plays Joshua. As it has been noted in numerous op-ed pieces, most actors of color were relegated to slaves and background characters.
Ridley Scott replied to these criticisms by saying that he’d never get the filmed financed if he had to rely on (and this is a direct quote), “Mohammad so-and-so from such-and-such.”
This point as taken up by writer Rebecca Pahle at Pajiba, who wrote a scathing response to Scott’s excuses, “Joel Edgerton, excellent actor though he is, is not a box office draw. His name does not sell movies…there is a point to be made about how Hollywood is an inherently racist institution, and that sucks, and sometimes you have to make compromises for your movie to be considered marketable. I guess. But I’m sorry—I just don’t have much sympathy here, maybe because most of the movies that have whitewashed in recent years were just kind of… bleh, or worse than bleh. Just tell a good story.”
The ministries and boards which have banned the film in Morocco, Egypt and the UAE have been fairly vague about their reasoning for not releasing the picture. Because of this, it’s hard to speculate whether the whitewashing of the characters played any role. However, it is rare for a film of this caliber to be banned within these countries.
It can be a difficult balance to portray historical figures that certain religious groups hold sacred, and create a compelling and realistic narrative that respects the various cultures involved. However, it seems that “Exodus,” which has been lambasted by critics for its lack of emotional resonance and clunky writing, has failed on all accounts. Such lazy film making, combined with an obtuse historical reverence, have clearly failed to entice a global audience.
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.