MovieChat Forums > Looking for Comedy in the Muslim World (2006) Discussion > 'Muslim World'.. it's a population vs. p...

'Muslim World'.. it's a population vs. percentage thing

posted 13 years ago by aman_virdy
5 replies | jump to latest

When I see the word "world" used after a particular demographic group, I assume majority. You can't figure out whether something is a majority or not just by looking solely at its population. You need to compare their population with other population figures, thus coming up with a percentage.

Now India has a VERY large Muslim population. However, percentage-wise, Muslims are not even close to being the majority religion. Thus, calling it a "Muslim world" is highly inaccurate.

While India is considered a secular nation, obviously it's a very Hindu world. The Hindu religion is intertwined and melded into society, culture, and perhaps even other religions. In the same sense, I am a Sikh born and raised in Canada that celebrates Christmas. There's no doubt about the fact that I'm living in a Roman Catholic world.

Looking solely at the largest populations of a particular demographic, we could infer that a movie called "Finding comedy in a Catholic world" could be filmed entirely in China and India (highest and second highest populations).

Indonesia has the largest Muslim population on the planet. However, the Western image of Islam is someone of Arab or South Asian descent. Thus someone with Oriental features would be confusing for the vast majority. This Hollywood stereotype is the reason why most Hindus and Sikhs are assumed to be Muslim at first glance in North America (not by everyone, but the vast majority). Plus the whole turban thing makes it even more frustrating for Sikhs as 99.9% of the turbaned-wearing people you'll ever encounter in North America are Sikhs, yet foolish people assume Muslim or Muslim terrorist thanks to Osama's cultural (not religious) adoption of the turban.

The Middle Eastern nations and Islamic republics would be the best representatives of the true "Muslim world". Obviously it would be difficult in nations with extremists, but I'm sure they could found at least one nation with a Muslim majority that's not radical.

Someone made a comparison recently regarding this movie and Slumdog Millionaire and how it featured slum kids that were Muslim, yet was entirely based in India. Not only is that a horrible comparison, but it's actually very plausible that the kids in the movie were Muslims since a lot of the Hindu untouchables were the easiest to convert to Islam (to get their family's out of caste discrimination).

In regards to some comments that people have made regarding the choice of India as being ironic as it was supposed to satirize the stereotypical American ignorance, I think that's stupid and I'm glad I haven't seen the movie.

Oh yeah, and lastly... Albert Brooks is not funny.

P.S. Sheetal, the hot girl from the movie, is a Hindu. Not that her religion matters as she was playing a character. But an interesting tidbit, nevertheless.

[–] cbartal 13 years ago

You haven't seen the movie? Why not just see the movie before posting? Your arguments just disinegrate immediately. This is the "Looking for Comedy in the Muslim World" board. At least just see the movie. Just as a courtesy to us, please.

[–] Mymessages74 12 years ago

It still doesn't change the fact that India is NOT a muslim country.

[–] cbartal 12 years ago

Did you see the movie MYmessage?

The fact that India is not a Muslim country is laid out in the first 20 minutes of the film. It is part of the irony of the whole thing.

Did you see the movie? Do you recall the scene with Fred Thompson? It's all there. You both missed the irony and satire, and self deprecation entirely.

[–] aman_virdy 12 years ago

While normally I would agree wholeheartedly about the absurdness of someone commenting on a movie without even seeing it, my comments were based entirely on the trailer, the title, and what people have told me about the movie (that have seen it, and apparently liked it).

That being said, your explanation/spoiler is almost more troubling to me because of the fact that none of the people that saw the movie that I talked to mentioned that scene that apparently clears it all up. So either the movie makes it far too subtle, or that was an afterthought by Brooks and he decided to stick it into the movie as a poorly executed disclaimer or justification, or the audience was just too oblivious to his supposed satire and mother-of-all jokes. If it was obliviousness to his satire, then I'm afraid his self-depreciating irony attempt at the Western world's expense ended up being ironic in its own light by the Western world not even understanding it. What is that anyway... Cruel irony? Meta-irony? Recursive irony? I'm sure there's a word for it.

If that was in fact the intention of Brooks, I hope most people that saw it actually "got it". I feel that the only way that I could force myself to enjoy it, let alone watching it, would be if I mentally prepped myself into accepting the lameness of his jokes, the factual inaccuracies, and literally everything I know I'm inevitably going to have a problem with, to be part of the big joke (which I don't really think will end up being funny). But then again if that's what I have to do to enjoy the movie, I probably don't want to see it. It would almost need a tagline like "Borat, but scripted".

Maybe there is a market for this, but from the box office stats it doesn't look likely. And while I'm not going to knock this movie anymore since I haven't seen it, I'm probably not going to change my stance on the whole thing anytime soon. Thanks for your clarification though on the whole matter.

[–] cbartal 12 years ago

First of all aman, we cannot have a straightforward discourse on this thread if you have not seen the movie.

I cannot be expected to counterpoint the hearsay of your friends, or the hearsay of others that you retort in your posts. Please, just see the darn movie - then we can have a discussion.

I will say that Brooks is a hard pill to swallow for most audiences because he always makes himself the fool in his own movies. He is the punchline in almost every scene. It is self deprecation to the max, even to the extent of the title that he gives LFCITMW. The film is not about Islam, or the Muslims, or US politics and it's relationship to Islam, or anything else. The film is about Albert Brooks and his deficiencies as a human being regarding human relationships.

Every film of his is like this.

Yes, it's a hard sell to the mass or even miniscule audience.

But Brooks has found a niche in his popularity in that he actually gets funding to make a film every 10 years or so.

But please, just see the film. See it about 5 times, infact. I think that after 5 viewings you would get it, and would probably enjoy it.

But start with once.