BY BEN WINTERS
 |
|
Gold-plated
AK-47 rifle
|
A few of our fighting
men sent to wage war in Iraq, and a whole bunch of the journalists sent
to cover them, could not resist the temptation to take a little somethin’
somethin’ back for the folks at home. Like, for example, “oil
portraits of Saddam Hussein's sadistic son Odai [or Uday, depending on
whose style you’re using]; another painting of the deposed leader
himself; [and] a gold-plated AK-47 rifle.”
That’s from Christopher Marquis’ report (carried in the New
York Times and the San Francisco Chronicle) on the contraband thus far
seized by U.S. Customs from those returning from the war.
The most widely reported catches were of an unnamed U.S. servicemen (who
helped himself to a “gold-dipped rifle, a pistol and some ornamental
swords and knives”) and two members of the fourth estate: a Fox news
cameraman who snagged 12 paintings from the home of Odai Hussein, and
the Boston Herald reporter Jules Crittenden.
If there’s one thing the Boston Globe has got to love reporting on,
it’s a public disgrace at the Boston Herald. “They covered the
war in Iraq, braving sandstorms and guerrilla attacks as they reported
on the road to Baghdad,” wrote Geoff Edgers and Mark Jurkowitz gleefully
in the Globe on April 24. “But at least a handful of media members
have now been accused of bringing home more than the big story.”
They report that “[w]hen Crittenden arrived at [Boston’s] Logan
Airport he was carrying a painting and ornamental kitchen items. He said
he got the painting from the grounds of one of the presidential palaces.”
And the ornamental kitchen items? From the Baghdad Pottery Barn, perhaps?
The Globe quotes the Herald’s editor, Andrew Costello, declining
to discipline Crittenden for his pilferage, because “[w]hat he had
were clearly souvenirs and he declared them,” to U.S. Customs.
Crittenden takes a similar tack in self-defense at the journalist Web
site, Poynter Online: “It was with great surprise that I learned
that images of Saddam Hussein and assorted military equipment, collected
as battlefield souvenirs, might be considered part of Iraq’s valued
cultural heritage.”
And the ornamental kitchen items, Jules? Care to explain those?
Elsewhere In The Middle East
 |
|
Gowhar
Kheirandish
|
The various wire
services all have out versions of the tale of Gowhar Kheirandish, a respected
Iranian actress in her late 50s, who recently “was given a suspended
sentence of 74 lashes for kissing a young actor on the cheek.” As
the AP explains, “Iran’s strict Islamic laws ban socializing
between unrelated men and women. Public kissing between men and women
is considered un-Islamic and taboo.” Of course, public kissing—usually
of the “kiss-kiss, lovely to see you dahling variety”—is
an integral part of being an actress, which is apparently where Kheirandish
slipped up, planting a friendly smooch on fellow actor Ali Zamani at a
festival back in September.
Iran has shown signs of democratization in recent years, especially under
the presidency of Mohammad Khatani, but the country is still ruled by
strict religious laws. And yet the country supports a vibrant and respected
film industry, resulting in incidents like the 2001 arrest of feminist
director Tahmineh Milani.
In this latest incident, Kheirandish was awarding the best director prize
to Zamani when, says Reuters, “[a]s she handed over the award Kheirandish
shook the hand of Ali Zamani…and planted a kiss on his forehead.
The gesture, which Zamani later described as 'motherly,’ provoked
organized protests by local religious leaders and landed the pair in court.”
Now she faces the 74 lashes, but only if she commits another offense.
And Now For Some Real Public Indecency
 |
|
XXX
|
In famously repressed
England, battle lines have been drawn over a stage play called XXX, imported
from Spain, that presents “some of the most explicit sex scenes ever
seen in Britain,” reports the Evening Standard. The Standard article,
which helpfully includes a gallery of photos from the show, also details
XXX’s contents in serious detail: “The show featured explicit
scenes of anal, vaginal and oral sex, enacted on stage but apparently
simulated with the help of various sex aids…The video screen behind
the stage depicted genuine hardcore sex scenes throughout the show, from
the opening clip of a woman defecating onto the camera lens…explicit
scenes involving bestiality, double penetration, ejaculation and graphic
footage of genital torture and mutilation.”
Yes, but is it art? No, say the “anti-pornography campaigners [who]
greeted two preview performances,” according to the Spectator, which
also reports that at one preview, “two members of the audience—probably
as a publicity stunt—performed oral sex.”
That was in the audience!
Back in mid-March, according to the Telegraph, the British police examined
a video of the show and gave permission for it be performed in London.
XXX, that article explains, “claims to be a serious exploration about
the nature of sexual fantasies, [and] is performed by an experimental
Spanish theatre troupe, La Fura dels Baus, which helped to choreograph
the opening of the Barcelona Olympics in 1992.” So chalk up one point
for the “It’s art” side; apparently it’s based on
a Marquis de Sade novel “Philosophy of the Bedroom.”
The Telegraph article goes on to quote William Burdett-Coutts, artistic
director of the Riverside Studios in Hammersmith, where the show is being
produced, as denying “that he was staging the show just to shock.
He said it was a 'challenging’ piece of work and 'a change
from the endless repetitions of Shakespeare in British theatres.’”
As if artistic directors have only two choices: Henry V or a Spanish play
about bestiality.
The Daily Mirror ran the best defense of the show, from its co-producer
and co-writer, Carlos Padrissa: “In other countries, they laugh and
scream and cry, but here the audiences have been a bit cold. We are confident
that English people will enjoy the show. They do have more of a Victorian
upbringingm, but this is the best therapy for them.”