Change Your Image
ahmed_kafafi
Reviews
Paradise Now (2005)
martyrdom
For Muslims fighters suicidal operations translate into martyrdom, the reward for which in Muslim belief is paradise in a life to come. But for those who might understand death as extinction, suicidal attacks would be regarded as no more than a rash impulsive and unjustified act. But the moment that precedes one of those martyrs' death , undoubtedly, offers food for thought. True they are fuelled by a noble cause, but down to a personal level, the fighter, like any of us when confronting death, has to ponder the situation where he would leave behind dear ones and be cut off from the physical surroundings for eternity . And in a materialistic world such as ours he would also explore options, reasoning if suicidal operations are the only way out for a community that not all its members believe the sacrificial spirit is the ultimate solution. Such ideals inspired Paradise Now, the film that has caused ripples in the West and Israel, where a suicide bomber is perceived as a sheer terrorist. Its Palestinian director Hany Abu-Assad came to Dubai as his movie was the focus of the Arabian gala of the Dubai International Film Festival ( DIFF). The film's plus is definitely that of explaining for the first time to a Western audience what is beyond the Palestinian suicidal operations being reported everyday by their dailies and weeklies.
What made Paradise Now stand out is the fact that it was shot in the heart of events in Nablus amid gory clashes, missiles attacks and cross-fires. But most Arab viewers lamented the lack of scenes showing the atrocities of the Israeli forces. The focus mostly came on the fortunes of Saeed ( Nashef) and Khaled ( Sulaiman), two mechanics from the Nabuls' refugee camps. They are poverty-stricken like many young Palestinians living in the occupied territories under Israeli occupation. They are not issued permits to travel to neighbouring Israeli cities in search of better jobs. A daily curfew is imposed after a certain hour. Roaming in the streets at night is a real risk. The daily bombings and skirmishes are taking lives in their wake. We also understand that there are no cinemas or other entertainment channels available, for those were not rebuilt after they were burnt down during clashes.
In this atmosphere marked by repression, poverty and isolation, Saeed and Khaled receive a secret message from the leader of one Palestinian resistance group. They are told they have been chosen to undertake a suicidal operation in Tel Aviv in retaliation for Israeli assassination of key resistance elements. We understand that it is not a random choice, for the big resistance heads are aware that both chaps have been hardened by their rough living conditions. Both mechanics have to pretend they are traveling to work abroad, issue new passports and disguise as Israeli citizens. While Khaled poses for the passport photo, the photographer asks him to smile. But he cannot even force a smile. Days before he receives the message Khaled runs into a worker at a cheap restaurant. The worker expresses vindictively his desire to kill Swedish people for their initiative to commit suicide despite their prosperous living conditions. Khaled scolds him for his aggressive attitude, forgetting to consider the suicide rate among the Palestinians in the West bank.
But there is a difference between the Palestinian and Swedish approaches. Unlike the latter, the former has been triggered by a policy of injustice, isolation and fear adopted by the Jewish colonizer. Seeing Paradise Now some would blame the Palestinian resistance groups rather than the martyrs for the chaotic state in the West Bank. But there is always the argument that the resistance fighters have also been toughened as a result of the torture inflicted on them by the same tormenter. Their sole aim, therefore, is to destabilize the enemy's peace. And to hit their target they have killed the fear of death inside them. As Abu Azzam, the representative of the resistance group puts it: " Whoever fears death will live all his life as a dead person. This who never fears it will have the peace of mind to look it up unexpectedly."
On their way to Tel Aviv Khaled and Saeed, along with other resistance agents, get dispersed as an Israeli raid intercepts their movement at a border point. There follows a short split-up where both men start to explore the meaning of suicidal operations and martyrdom, to think of whether to choose paradise or lead a meaningless life in the refugee camps. And as Abu-Assad voices it: " The suicide bombers are united by one cause but each is a different case." Khaled's faith in suicidal attacks is shaken after he listens to Saeed's educated widely-travelled girlfriend Suha arguing against violence as the only way to salvation. But Saeed is determinedly heading towards self-sacrifice partly to erase the stigma of his father who was killed for accepting to work as an Israeli agent. However, recruiting agents from among the Palestinians is also perceived to be another form of oppression, for treason, like self-sacrifice, could sometimes figure as an option for a community on the brink of desperation. " To tempt Palestinians to betray their compatriots translates into corrupting people after they ( the Israelis) have managed to weaken them," says Saeed.
But the film's fresh perspective lies in what follows the actual suicidal operations. Is it paradise and the company of martyrs and angels? After all to continue to live under the occupation amounts to 'digging our own graves'. But the operations are primarily marked by revenge.
" Revenge is different from struggle," says Suha. " It justifies Israeli killings." But Kais argues that every option has been turned: war, violence, negotiations. "The Jews don't want us to have a homeland on an equal footing with them. They want us to accept occupation as an unchangeable status quo." So what is left other than Paradise?
Alexander (2004)
Alexander and globalisation
Alexander did not meet the expectations of the average movie-lover. The American critics have been out expressing dismay at the production while comparing it with Troy and Gladiator. Criticisms of the film, however, have focused on technical aspects that are hard to look upon as the sole tally of failure or success. In Alexander attention is likely to focus on how to tailor the many and diverse details of the biography for a three hour drama. In Troy and Gladiator the mythical aspect could only allow of a simple story-line that was overshadowed by the high production techniques employed to picture the battles. But with Alexander, a fully realistic account tinged with myth, it was difficult to undertake a similar task. It would not have been acceptable to give myth the upper hand in a treatment that depicts the life of a significant pioneer as Alexander. Obviously Alexander's history corresponds with a current political trend: globalisation with a Western nation being the main player in turning it into a reality.
Itis hard to underline that globalisation was Oliver Stone's major concern that had to crowd out the hero's multi-faceted biography. However, it is important for one to consider how the film has unfolded along these two lines. Here is an extraordinary hero who for the first time in history is deviating from the ideals of nationalism and military glories. This is the student of Aristotle, who comes under the influence of that all-ages scholar to imbibe a new perspective of military conquests. It is one aimed at the unification of the human race and the intermarriage between East and West. How this perspective had developed was not really clear in the episode dealing with his childhood, which focused mostly on the elements that led to his bisexuality in years to come, mainly his attachment to his semi-sorceress mother queen Olympia and the tarnished image maintained of his father, king Philip. As he set out to conquer the world no mention was ever made of Egypt, the first and one important station in his seven-year march. It was in Egypt that he first had to confront the Persians who colonised that country. It was there that the secret of his parentage, being the son of Zeus, was revealed to him at the temple of Amon, the chief Egyptian deity. We are not told he had adopted the Egyptian religion as a way to integrate into other cultures. The only reference to Alexandria are the scenes in which Ptolomey figures to relate the life-story of the hero in flashbacks. But still one good point is that his blurred sexuality consisting in his shyly expressed love for his friend Hephaistion and his desire to woo other peoples through intermarriage do go parallel with his yet immature ideal of marching further towards the East in spite of his army's pathetic condition. Alexander proposes to the daughter of Darius, the defeated Persian king after he prevails over the Persian troops in Babylon. He marries Rexona, the nomad Asian princess before he proceeds to conquer India. At two points, unlike other conquerors, he is paying homage to the conquered nations. In Babylon he is refuting the fact that the Persians were as coarse and chaotic people, as they were always told as children. In Asia he is talking of the Asians as nations who have advantage over Greece, being builders of civilisations that were ahead of Greece in time! Definitely the concept was new and as a pioneer Alexander could not help sometimes succumbing to the prejudices of his own people. Traditional imperialists, the Greek would certainly opt to assert their identity and boast of their superiority over the conquered groups. They fail to understand the philosophy underlying Alexander's move to marry a nomad princess and carry on with his ventures even when his soldiers had been fighting for eight years. At that early stage in humanity's development Alexander's plans were doomed to failure. After he died, his empire was divided into four parts and the Greek, like the Persians, Romans and many who followed emerged as mere colonisers. As for Alexander, his view with regard to world unity had remained the subject of a serious debate: Why cannot the world turn into a global village, the aim of today's world politicians? Stone might have offered part of the answer. The approach of the Greek, as given by him in that production, still stressed the obsession of today's West with the ever-present pre-eminence of the West over the East. The first clash of values as represented in the Occident ( Greece- later Rome ) and the Orient ( Persia) was hardly ever there. With the glittering towers and torch-lit avenues of Babylon, the Greek continued to regard the Persians as coarse and uncivilised. But even today Alexander is inspiring lofty and ambitious world leaders. His concept to globalise the world had faltered as will today's. This is simply because a common ideal for all nations is essential before embarking on any move towards that end. But so far Islam will remain the only successful, though the hardly-ever-cited, attempt to globalise the world. Nations are bound to have different languages, customs and outlooks as long as they exist. It is such a cumbersome task to offer an Alexander with a high entertainment value. Although there was room for improvement, still Stone, despite the diversity and complexity of Alexander, has managed to produce a thought-provoking movie, which justifies its little appeal for a pleasure-seeking cinema-goers. The matter is not yet over, for the coming productions on Alexander will show how others can improve on Oliver's work. Finally all these filmmakers will have to stand the test.
The Hamburg Cell (2004)
The Arab perspective
As soon as The Hamburg Cell, a British television production was screened at the Dubai International Film Festival 2004 ( DIFF), many voices echoed in the spacious hall of Madinat Theatre to ask the same question : ' What is the intention of producing such a film? It still remains a big question why the movie had to be shown in an Arab country-based international film festival even when its screening was expected to trigger trouble rather than promote understanding. It was fortunate that the educated cultured Arab expatriates who viewed the film were not stirred beyond certain limits. Egyptian born actor Kamel, interestingly declining throughout the event to reveal his family name, told news agencies that he feared that the audience's reaction could have erupted into violence. " I thought somebody could throw something," said Kamel. " When I was coming up the stairs I thought this could be the moment." He also expressed concern that one day he would have to confront the hijackers' families. Even though the movie was screened elsewhere, it was in the Dubai that kamel came to view it for the first time.
But back to the question of intentions, it was hard to say that the production was basically directed against the culprits or their countries as much as it was against their crimes. But the film in its totality came lacking in several respects with regard to in-depth analysis and cultural facts that made it appear more like a suspense movie rather than a dramatic treatment. But after all the 9.11 attacks were definitely possessed of a high suspense element and could inspire a perfect disaster genre. However, Finola Dwyer, the film producer who was also present, played down the suspense aspect, stressing the political and the social dimensions of the issue. Considering the film from that latter perspective, it is worth underlining the factor of timing: it is as yet too early to produce a movie about that mammoth terrorist happening. Not all facts relating to the disaster are available and we expect much more to be unraveled in the future. Dwyer refused to recognize the question of timing and went on to add that for the film to avoid appearing tilted towards the West, a team of Arab actors were selected to cast in the film. But how would that matter when the actor is not the one who constructs the screenplay! Claims came that the movie was accurately researched with some of the facts provided by the CIA. But the viewing of Hamburg Cell still didn't add much to what came in the media reports throughout the last three years.
In Hamburg- the coastal German city- where the terrorists were said to have started planning for the deadly operations which claimed 3,000 lives, we encounter bearded fundamentalists who brain-wash young students with secular tendencies. In one example, that of Atta, there is a fleeting scene in which we understand that pressures by his father to get a PhD might have driven him towards such activities. But at no point are we enlightened about why those students succumb to the fundamentalists' wishes while their Saudi accomplices were pushed to the sidelines!
On the cultural platform we are told that the attackers, besides the political motives, were disgusted by the Western materialistic lifestyle in which an individual's goal is no other than property like a villa, a car and other perks that accompany an executive position. The political motive was hardly there, only a short fight and a dispute between Jarrah and a Palestinian mate remain one among a few other details highlighted to accentuate the political aspect of the terrorists' motive. No images of their original background in their home countries was ever there. No images of Israeli and American aggressions on Iraq and Palestine were directly cited, although these are still the only excuse left for people in the Islamic world to express sympathy for the cause of the terrorists.
It is important to note that the Arab and Islamic countries have undergone similar terrorist attacks by extremists in their recent history. What makes 9.11 different is the magnitude of the aggressions and their target being the US, the sole superpower. The production and related articles, however, are not primarily meant to turn the discussion into a political controversy. It is more about the drama and whether it fits into the subject matter. Karim Saleh said that every one has reacted to the 9.11 attacks, so why not the cinema. Right, but more daring would have been a documentary in which the producers could have focused on the attackers as well as the victims' families, the ground that breeds fundamentalism, the ambiguity that still surrounds the operations. It is understandable that this would have been a cumbersome task with much being kept as top secrets. But again if this is the case how could the Hamburg Cell be realistic if a lot of information is still in the realm of secrecy!
At this stage we need a down-to-earth version of the disaster. In drama a lot can be added or deleted as in Titanic and other disaster films. At least in a matter as sensitive as the 9.11 attacks, still one of the main players on the political scene, a sensational like Hamburg Cell should figure at the bottom of the list. More than a suspense, in these troubled waters marking the world's political scene, we need works that provide more understanding than ones which increase tension. And at a film festival meant to bridge cultures the Hamburg Cell should have been excluded, just for the sake of peaceful moments enjoyed amid the conflicts that endanger world peace, stability and a prosperous future for humanity.-----( ENDS)