Question: Why Is It Okay to Depict Islam's Founder In an Iranian Movie But Not in a Danish Cartoon?

I only ask because the 10th anniversary of the Danish 'toons is coming up (Mark Steyn and Flemming Rose, the editor of the Danish newspaper whose decision it was to publish the 'toons, will be speaking about it at a commemorative event in Copenhagen on the 26th), and because, according to far-left British rag The Guardian, there's a new Muhammad flick, the work of an Iranian director, that's making the rounds:

Majidi’s film is the first on the subject since Moustapha Akkad’s 1977 film The Message, and the first to visually depict the prophet, though a Qatari team is currently said to be developing its own Muhammad franchise.

What gives? I thought any depiction of that "messenger" was strictly verboten?
 
Or could it be that that's really a crock, and that the level of outrage surrounding such visuals is apt to depend almost entirely on who is doing the depicting? (In the case of the Iranian film, for example, some Egyptian clerics--Sunni rivals to Iran's Shias--are said to be upset because "the actor playing the prophet might later portray a criminal, leading viewers to associate Islam with crime." But that kind of pique pales in comparison to the violent riots that erupted ten years ago in response to the Motoons.)