according to the ny times, they’re trying to get the boys and their families out of afghanistan (to uae) before releasing the movie

Is it not their whole ethnic community, not just their family, that holds these beliefs? How are you going to live a normal life, if they really do feel this strongly against his participation in the rape scene?

It should never have been released this way, I think. I can see though your point about given that it’s already released, won’t it just lend validity to the community’s views to stifle it. (sorry about this last sentence )

It’s the physical danger thing that I can’t get past, it’s hard for me to advocate for ideas when a boy’s family believes his life is at stake.

In that society (as in all, more or less) dishonor attaches to the victim… So much so that a simulated rape, watched by the public worldwide on big screens, is apparently detrimental to the fake victim… So apparently there is fear that the dishonor felt by the ingroup will cause some of its members to kill the boy, to excise the dishonor. Our opinions about free speech…seem to me to be irrelevant to what is being reported as the reality on the ground there – that the boy and his family feel themselves to be in physical danger because of the ingroup’s reaction to “its” “dishonorable” portrayal in this movie.

I agree with your points, but disagree with your conclusions. Granted, I have the luxury of sitting several thousand miles away from the family in question, but the pragmatic thing is not always the right thing. The movie brings attention to an issue that is often overlooked. That issue will never be resolved by simply hoping for the best and keeping your mouth shut. On the other hand, the depiction of the abuse in the movie should at least spur some attention to the issue of child molestation and rape. The child may not understand this fully, and his family may have understood it imperfectly, but there it is.

Furthermore, it’s already released. More harm would come from trying to stifle it out of any sense of shame than would from just hiring good bodyguards and giving your idiot family members a stern talking-to.

I agree, but I doubt that Hosseini writes his novels with the intention of creating controversy. It would be wonderful if people could learn about history, perhaps even a different perspective of history, from these kinds of films and novels, and some might argue that authors and filmmakers have a responsibility to teach people. But fiction is fiction – a story, even if it’s set in a real time and place.

Anyway, the film was quite lovely, although not perfect. I felt a deeper understanding of Hassan and Amir’s friendship from the book (but I felt the same about the portrayal of Harry’s friendship with Ron and Hermione in the first Harry Potter film so…), and Hosseini’s emphasis the importance of kite flying/running to Afghanis and Hassan and Amir wasn’t expressed as strongly in the film.

1) The boy’s life may be in danger because he will have participated in a portrayal which implies he (and by extension his ingroup) is rapable.

2) The boy and his family may not have agreed to his participation in this portrayal.

In that society (as in all, more or less) dishonor attaches to the victim of an actual rape. So much so that a simulated rape, watched by the public worldwide on big screens, is apparently detrimental to the fake victim. So much so that the dishonor attaching to the victim in a real or simulated rape attaches to the victim’s ingroup. Perhaps more so with the simulated rape since millions of people worldwide will see/infer it. So apparently there is fear that the dishonor felt by the ingroup will cause some of its members to kill the boy, to excise the dishonor. The logic seems to be the same as in honor killings.

Our opinions about free speech, freedom of artistic expression, how important this story is to be told, our rejection of the idea of the victim being to blame, our criticism of all that is wrong about the society’s attitude toward rape victims and its treatment of them, whether the ingroup should feel dishonored, etc. seem to me to be irrelevant to what is being reported as the reality on the ground there – that the boy and his family feel themselves to be in physical danger because of the ingroup’s reaction to “its” “dishonorable” portrayal in this movie.

I don’t know if it can really be sufficient in the internet age to try to release one version here, another there.

Yeah, I think this is the most salient point. No children were harmed or pretended to be harmed in order to write and publish the book; if this child actor is stigmatized because of his role in the movie, whatever we think of the reasons for that, it’s harmful to him. I’m impressed that the filmmakers went to such lengths for authenticity– filming in Dari, etc.– and I can understand why it was important to them to find a child actor who is a native Dari speaker. (I work in the translation industry, and trust me, there aren’t a lot of Dari-English resources out there– training an actor or finding a voiceover actor or some other workaround would be really hard to do.) But I hope they recognize that these are real people’s lives they are affecting.

Is anyone else reminded of the allegations about Sacha Baron-Cohen exploiting Kazakh villagers during the filming of ‘Borat’?

To those of you who have not read the book, the painful incident is important because it makes a very strong impression on a young mind, that haunts him all his life.

Vital to the story, but like Runa says re Houndog, I can see that rubbing off on the actor in any society– even if it wasn’t violent, because early sex generally carries a stigma– although I don’t know how many of us remember Brooke Shields as Pretty Baby.

Another thing about books v. films is that you can pretty much count on a reader being pretty well educated and no other humans being involved in creating his/her interior vision of the action depicted in print.