|
|
Re: Paradise Now (Al-Jenna-Al) discussion
Posted:
Oct 2, 2005 6:34 PM
|
|
Paradise Now is distinctive because of its dramatic power and because it establishes the human element and story telling as distinctive. For those who expected a propaganda film with the good and bad guys, these elements are less visible. Of course, there is the presumption of the Israeli occupation, but the film does not start the story of the Arab-Israeli conflict from square one. This is a virtue, because if it did, we would have to get into details from the very beginning--Jewish claims and rights in Palestine, colonialism and how Zionism is a different species, Arab resistance during the Mandate and the wars of 1948 and beyond.
The story line between Said and Khaled is interesting as they embark on suicide bombing with handlers who seem like they are operating a marketing firm rather than a Jihad organization.But maybe Jihad organizations are designed like marketing or business firms with the religious aspect a convenient cover. Thus the question arises about the issue of the suicide bomber an how this concept of resistance has marked a hijacking of Islam for the purposes of martydom. Dying for the faith is one thing, dying for a political cause which may or may not been linked to Islam is another thing. However, the logic of becoming a suicide bomber occurs because of the banality of life under occupation, the absence of heroes, movies stars and such and the resulting cult of the martyr. Thus the point where Said's life is described as "Japanese minimalist" (film) is significant. The fact that his father was a collaborator executed by Palestinians is significant, which I would suggest is a problem generally but also a specific problem when clan relationships are stronger and national identity in a state of flux. The misuse of Islam comes out pretty strong, as the handlers are the ones who are interested in success for themselves, as demonstrated in their frustration over the first failure of the operation among people who had been specificially picked for the operation. "Chosen people" has a new meaning in this context. However, failures are hinted to from the outset: the enigmatic aspects of the characters, their relationships with mothers and other women, the "last supper scene" reflective of the issue of redemption or lack of it (in a Christological sense), the washing of the body (the presumption is that he is already dead), and the final scene on the bus which may or may not have resulted in an explosion--the viewer is left without this knowledge, and thus can read it as he or she wishes. The film ends with the eyes, which are sometimes said to be the entry to the soul. The film then goes white--so what is the message--that the soul is nothing (is he intellectually dead at this point or just exhausted?)or does he detonate? Whatever the answer, there are no dead bodies lying around and this oft-viewed reality from TV does not turn into pornography.
What this film says about the resolution of the conflict is another thing? This depends on the outcome? If Said detonated himself and the surrounding victims, then there is the suggestion that violence in the conflict continues. Thus, as Amnesty International has suggested in its reports, we have two cases of "Crimes Against Humanity"--one with aspects of the Israeli occupation and violation of the rules of occupation, and the other with the killing of civilians by suicide bombers.This raises another question: who are the innocents here, if any? Are all civilians targets because of how the Israeli army works? And have all Palestinians become potential terrorists because of the Israeli perception and lack of specificity of victims? While I am not particularly in favor of walls, the Israeli wall-fence has been useful is lessening the suicide bomber threat. Thus an up to date version might be faced with the problem of the would-be bombers climbing a wall.By the way-how shall we call this people--suicide bombers of "homocide bombers?"
Then we have the issue of women. Said's mother is left with the vision of her husband as a collaborator, executed by his own people, for maybe doing something he thought was good. Collaborators, however, always come out on the bad end of things. She is also concerned that Said looks like her executed husband. If Said is successful is his bombing attempt, what will happen to her? Will her house be demolished as has been the case with other families of terrorists--what I think is a pretty fruitless retaliation, especially if the family doesn't know. However, we don't know if the mother knows or does not know--so she plays a role for what she does not say or think by a mother's instinct about the plight of her son. Suha has the potential to humanize, and maybe does that with Khaled, and maybe has an impact on Said. But women are supposed to mourn, not play such an active role, and this raises a distinctive issue about what role women would play in a Palestinian state should it ever come about?
The selling of films about collaborators and martyrs is interesting because the martyr's story, after all, becomes a cliche after the first few recorded stories--it is scripted. Khaled's scene in front of the movie camera that doesn't work is more than a jab by the director at the whole concept of the theatre of martyrdom.
In the end the film is very successful because it doesn't have specific answers and doesn't confirm what an ideologicial audience expecting the Israelis as bad guys and Palestinians as victims expects.Thus the answer to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is not black and white, but shades of grays. What will be the answer? Maybe not in violence.
Finally, there is another element absent: the other Arabs and Arab states. If life on the West Bank stinks (which it does for Palestinians), what can be said of the other Arab states who permit their brothers and sisters to sink into poverty, as well as the PLO leadership which is known to have embezzled millions of dollars into numbered Swiss bank accounts.We do hear from an Arab cab driver who recites all kinds of nonsence about how the Israelis are messing with the water supply to affect his sperm--but he has five kids.
So, great story, no immediate resolution, but maybe conversations are the basis of understanding.
|
|
