EXECUTIVE SUITE Free speech, fundamentalist ideolog and the burning of Pakistani cinemas THE CHAOS IN KARACHI STILL FROM THE CONTROVERSIAL FILM INNOCENCE OF MUSLIMS John Fithian President & CEO, NATO ■ For many years, cinemas constituted an important component of the social and cultural landscape of Pakistani cities like Karachi. Movie premieres were attended by prime ministers, generals and the intellectual elite. Magnificent in their architecture, Pakistani cinemas have been art deco, baroque, modernist and beyond. Cinema owners were once held in high esteem. Even the current president of the country rose in Karachi’s society in part because of his father’s connection to one of the most famous cinemas, the Bambino. Pakistan had its own movie industry. Cinemas exhibited local fare with actors such as Sabiha and Santosh, the “first couple of Pakistani cinema,” as well as foreign fare like the latest James Bond flick. Through the ’50s, ’60s and ’70s, Pakistani cinemas did big business as more than 120 cinemas thrived in Karachi. Through the ’80s and ’90s, however, Pakistan went through a religious and cultural transformation, as did much of the Muslim world. Fundamentalist ideology brought censorship and puritanism to the culture. Over time, families and women could no longer go to the cinema without upsetting the new norms. The cinemas began to cater almost exclusively to men, particularly the lower classes who wanted to see more violence and less plot. The number of cinemas in Karachi fell from more than 120 to less than 35. Very recently, though, a small resurgence had begun to take place. Some cinema owners invested a great deal of money to modernize and improve their venues. Indian movies became popular again. In many locations, families and the middle class returned to the cinema without much condemnation from fundamentalists. The minirevival of cinema had begun. Then a 13-minute clip of a crass, anti-Muslim, bigoted piece of amateur American filmmaking hit the Internet, and all hell broke loose. Violence began to break out across Northern Africa and the Middle East. The U.S. ambassador to Libya and three of his colleagues were assassinated. Fundamentalist Muslim protestors and economically challenged youth came together to rampage American businesses and protest American embassies across the region. In Karachi, as in the rest of the Muslim world, the tension and violence grew. On September 21, the pot in Karachi boiled over. Mobs attacked policemen, destroyed banks and shops, and leveled American-brand businesses. The mob also focused its violence on one additional and specific target—the movie cinemas of the city. They set fire to many historic cinemas, such as the Capri, the Nishat, the Bambino and the Prince. Their rage wasn’t limited to historic properties but extended to suburban cinemas like those at Landhi and Quaidabad, where factory workers had enjoyed the latest blockbusters. The violence that erupted in Karachi essentially wiped out the cinema business in that city. Why would mobs burn cinemas, and why wouldn’t their government stop them? Is a single Internet posting of one short but horribly derogatory movie clip to blame? And where does the border lie between the exercise of First Amendment freedoms and absurdly incendiary and bigoted moviemaking? This author’s answer must begin with the rights and responsibilities of the First Amendment. Prior to my current role with NATO, I practiced law representing various clients with First Amendment concerns, from NATO to the ACLU to communications companies to magazine and newspaper publishers and to tobacco and alcohol advertisers. I have always believed in an unfettered marketplace of ideas where any speech, short of treason or a direct incitement to violence, deserved protection. When I was considering the possibility of joining NATO full-time, one important draw was the high profile of the free-speech issues involved. Domestic cinema owners range from conservative Republicans to liberal Democrats. But they all share important tenets. One such belief is the right to exhibit whatever movies they choose to exhibit, based on their understanding of their local marketplaces and their strong belief that the industry should let patrons decide what they do, and don’t, want to see. The government should stay out of the business of censorship. This core belief has been reflected consistently in a wide spectrum of circumstances. Many fundamentalist Christians sincerely opposed the exhibition of movies like The Last Temptation of Christ, but exhibitors showed the movie. Many Jews criticized cinemas for showing the assuredly anti-Semitic Passion of the Christ, but the movie sold hundreds of millions of dollars worth of tickets. Republicans disliked Fahrenheit 9/11 just like Democrats abhorred 2016: Obama’s America, but both movies did 10 BOXOFFICE PRO NOVEMBER <strong>2012</strong>
Lights. Camera. Atmos. Introducing Dolby Atmos, the most immersive cinema sound experience yet. Sound can now be mapped to any object in a scene and is free to move throughout the theatre, creating a clear, lifelike audio experience. With Dolby Atmos you can almost feel the dust of the stampede. Learn more at dolby.com/atmos