Director Hany Abu-Assad falls into the damned if he does, damned if he doesn't category. As has been happening for centuries, people are very passionate about their beliefs about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the Middle East. And with his film, “Paradise Now,” the debate continues – this time onto the silver screen in a Golden Globe-winning film.
Many films that fare well in the Golden Globes end up getting recognized with Oscar nominations. (We'll see if it is the case this year, as the Academy Award nominations come out on Jan. 22.) This was also the case for “Paradise Now.” And some people weren't happy about that. And there is where we begin our discussion about the protests against this film.
“Paradise Now,” focuses on the story of two Palestinian friends who are recruited to be suicide bombers. Certainly, we have a unique perspective here – it's being told through the eyes of these men who have recently lost their jobs, are not in committed relationships and feel trapped and oppressed living on the West Bank. The people who are recruiting them sense that this is an opportunity that the men will take because of these circumstances. It is a difficult topic, with many raw emotions. The end result in the film is that people in Tel Aviv, Israel will be killed.
After it was nominated, a petition was written by the victim of a suicide bombing, urging the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences to withdraw the nomination, saying it glorified Palestinian suicide bombers.
“Granting an award to this kind of movie gives the filmmakers a seal of approval to hide behind. ... By ignoring the film's message and the implications of this message, those that chose to award this film a prize have become part of the evil chair of terror and accomplices to the next suicide murders – whether they kill 17 people or 17,000 people,” he wrote.
News reports said the petition received more than 36,000 online signatures.
But there are several reasons why the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences was correct in nominating the movie for an Oscar.
First, there's the issue of the First Amendment. Past “Best Picture” awards went to films like Schindler's List (1993), Platoon (1986), Ghandi (1982) and The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957). All of these films dealt with conflicts, politics and the death of many people on one side of the conflict or the other.
I agreed with Academy spokesman John Pavlik, who told Aljazeera.net that “We're not going to disqualify films because some people don't like the content.”
A counter-petition said the film depicts “how a life of desperation can lead to an act of desperation.” Whether you agree with that statement or not, the other point it makes is that “art should not be censored in any shape or form.”
Secondly, Abu-Assad is showing viewers a world which many of them have never seen and won't ever understand – but it is important to look at many sides when having a debate about difficult issues like war. And I thought the idea that it glorified suicide bombing was actually not true.
The characters are portrayed as men who have reservations about what they are doing. Said asks Khalid if they are doing the right thing, and asks if he is scared. The leaders of the ring must know that people may have reservations about what they are doing – which is why they strap the bombs onto the men with a tamper-proof lock, so they can not take it off without it exploding.
Even during the filming of their martyr tapes, there is some hesitation. During the first taping, Khalid is only reading the script tentatively, and seems to not completely embrace it. The more he reads, the more he buys into it, but as Said watches his friend, he tears up.
Suha is certainly a character that brings another layer of depth to the film-and she shows that there are people who try another way, without violence. Khalid is finally convinced. Unfortunately, Said is not.
Ultimately, the movie just makes people think. And films like that are rare. No matter what side of the political spectrum you find yourself on, it was the right thing to do to nominate this film for the awards it got.
***Popcorn tidbits***
When Said comes to see Suha in the middle of the night, she makes tea. When she asks how he takes it, she says, “Why to people in Nablus take so much sugar in their tea?” I took it as a counter to the way many of the people there live – that sugar at least brings them happiness.
In a crowd scene, as the people in Nablus are blocked from going through a road block, they simply walk down another path. As they do so, there are explosions in the background. They just keep walking, because it is just a part of normal life there.
When Suha breaks Khalid's watch, it struck me as being symbolic for being out of time. Much like Said and his victims are about to be.
Two of the saddest small moments, for me, were the fact that Khalid's family made him a sandwich to take with him as he left for his mission, not knowing what he was doing. And when Said's mother looks inside his teacup, there are no tea leaves at the bottom. She says, “Oh my God. Your future is blank.”
One flaw in the story is when Said comes back. He is still wearing the bomb and they are riding around the city to get it taken off. I really think he cared about Suha, and he wouldn't have let her ride in the car with him while he had that on.
No comments:
Post a Comment