![the message 1976 cinematography the message 1976 cinematography](https://idsb.tmgrup.com.tr/ly/uploads/images/2020/11/25/74800.jpg)
I also appreciated the effort that the production made to be historically rigorous and faithful to the events described. The difficulties were also many, and part of the money for the film ended up coming from the hands of Libyan President Gaddafi, which is quite unusual, but understandable, at the time it was. We have Americans, English, Arabs, Moroccans, Libyans and other nationalities involved. The effort to co-produce this film was remarkable at the time. Personally, I coped well with the character's absence, but the overwhelming majority of the Western audience quickly dismissed the film. It is understandable: most Muslims can be understanding, but the fear of the West is radicalized minorities, willing to blow bombs in the cinema studio that dare to show the Prophet. A true story, therefore, but one that is never explored by Western cinema due to religious rashes. The film briefly recounts Muhammad's life and preaching, and the way he became a religious and military leader, going against the authorities of Mecca, the current polytheistic religion and his family until he imposed himself, by the word and - not least - by the strength of the weapons. This, in particular, also has the disadvantage that the central character of the plot - Muhammad - cannot be shown or heard. I think that the skewed way in which we see the Muslim faith, the result of recent events, terrorism and fundamentalism, also helped to bury these films. This does not happen, however, with films about Islam, which for us in Portugal is a religion that tells us little (although we spent a good part of our history, as a country, at war with Muslim peoples). We are all tired of seeing, at Easter and Christmas Eve every year, biblical films or involving Jesus in some way. However, even though it is a film aimed at the Muslim audience, I will speak from the perspective of someone who saw it in the West. Decent performances too.įor this film, I will take advantage of most of the review I made for the film in English, since there are virtually two twin versions of the same film, with a different cast and in a different language. As a person who does not know much about the history of Muhammad and Islam, quite edifying.
![the message 1976 cinematography the message 1976 cinematography](https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0024/9803/5810/products/561176-Product-1-I-637727535992866828_1080x.jpg)
Not as engaging as if we actually had the main character visible, but I can't think of a better way he could have made the film, given that restriction.
![the message 1976 cinematography the message 1976 cinematography](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BZWVkN2NmODAtMTMyMC00MTdkLThmMTktOWQ4NjI0Y2M5ZDFjXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMTU4MjUwMjI@._V1_UY1200_CR106,0,630,1200_AL_.jpg)
Akkad gets around the inability to show Muhammad through some clever devices, often concentrating on his senior aides rather than the man himself, and when he does have to have him present, doing it from a first person perspective. It clocks in at a touch under three hours but doesn't feel like it, it moves along so smoothly. Epic in scale, lavish in production and engaging in plot. Furthermore, his main character could not be shown at all! Despite these requirements and limitations, Akkad ultimately made a fine movie. Not only did the film have to be accurate in its depiction of Muhammad, as anything short of this would be sacrilegious, but, in order to reach a wider audience, it had to appeal to non-Muslims too. Due to the nature of the subject, director Moustapha Akkad had to thread his way between many restrictions. A highly ambitious film, capturing the life of Muhammad.