Fodder for Extremism
Added 11/22/2009
General Observations:
The film is originally in Arabic with voice-over in English, poorly done with little or no proximity effect in the audio.
The acting quality is often poor or "cheesy."
The plot is monolithic: A one-note theme of martyrdom's cause.
General Themes:
- Palestinians are victims oppressed by evil "Jewish Settlers." The movie clearly evokes the sympathy of the viewer toward the Palestinian "plight" and gives a platform for contempt for the Jews. No attempt is made to provide a balanced view of Israeli rights or sufferings under decades of terrorist attacks.
- Weak "collaborators" (those who reveal Palestinian terrorists or terror plots) versus strong "martyrs" (those who become Palestinian terrorists or suicide bombers)
- The just cause of "resistance" against the "never-ending occupation" of the Jewish State. Clearly the Palestinian argument is promoted that Israel does not have the right to exist.
- The conscience of the "cause" is greater and more noble than the conscience against it
- Said (the suicide bomber) is earning back the honor his father lost when he became a "collaborator"
- The struggle to do the will of Allah
Significant Lines:
- "Kill the collaborators, their families, their neighbors and their friends" (this represents a position validating the execution of collaborating Palestinians by Palestinians)
- Jamal, the recruiter philosophizes at length the rationale for suicide bombings with phrases like "It's time to answer the assassination of [a political prisoner]"
- "You must be very proud of Abu Hazan(?). Because of what he did, our cause is still alive." (a suicide bomber)
- "Either accept inferiority or let me die as a martyr."
- "Under the occupation we're already dead."
- "If you feel weak [having doubts about the terrorist act] read the Koran and pray."
- The "settlers" (Jews) "polluted the water to lower our sperm count."
- Did Said "betray us by not carrying out the mission?"
- "At least we will die as equals."
- "Israel has no morals."
Significant Scenes or References:
- The recruiters for young and impressionable men to become terrorists plot the day and time for others to die for the "cause." They secure "work licenses" in Israel, the contacts and the explosives. They promise instant martyrdom and the glory and honor that they and their families will receive. They also enjoy a pita snack while video taping the last words of one of their martyr recruits.
- The projection of the terrorists backgrounds is that of nice, wholesome families and good people, but all oppressed by the "occupation" of the evil Jews.
- Extremist actions such as burning down a theater in Israel is justified because "the Jews decided not to hire workers from the West Bank."
- Israeli atrocities are suggested such as breaking the leg of a Palestinian resister asking him, "which leg he would like to keep."
- A local video store in Nablus sells and rents videos of the "martyrs" last words before their fatal deed - usually glorifying Allah and justifying their cause in front of a flag while holding a machine gun or strapped to a bomb. The store also rents or sells videos of the execution of the discovered "collaborators" and their last words. The storeowner suggests that the "collaborators" executions are in greater demand.
- Said's father is assumed to have been a collaborator and was executed by the Palestinians. Yet it is clear that Said blames the Jews who "used his [father's] weakness."
- The would-be martyrs are blessed by religious rituals including a "last supper" recreation with Jamal (the recruiter and Jihadist philosopher) at the center (reminiscent of Jesus and His disciples).
- Abu Kharim (sp?), the primary leader of the unnamed "resistance" movement, shows up on the scene to congratulate and bless the honor of their martyrdom and is venerated as "The Legend." He assures them that after the deed, "we will commemorate your success" and your "families will be honored."
- Jewish soldiers are projected as cowards who "won't put themselves at risk" and will shoot the suicide bombers "at a distance" because "he is afraid of death."
- The assurance of Jamal to the would-be martyrs is that immediately after their deed, "two angels are there to greet you."
- The terrorist, Said, is portrayed as having a sensitive, benevolent conscience as he chooses not to blow up a bus filled with women and children. In the final scene, however, Said is shown on a second bus with soldiers (and that is the camera focus) and innocent civilians in the background. Said has now overcomes the temptations to turn back. The camera zooms in on Said's face that appears to reflect newfound peace and determination. We don't see the explosion or the carnage, but it is clear what happens as the screen suddenly goes white rather than fading to black.
Review:
This is not only a poor film, but also an unveiled attempt to persuade the viewer of the desperation of the Palestinian - that, in fact, they are an oppressed people who have no other weapon than that of terrorism. The suicide bombers are victims, not murderers.
Anti-Semitism is rampant throughout the movie and no rebuttal is even attempted. Jews are portrayed as evil "settlers," and immoral oppressors who have no right to "occupy" the Middle East...or to exist.
I find it appalling that such unveiled propaganda was up for several awards. This is neither art nor entertainment. At best, this is fodder for extremism and, at worst, promotes terrorism.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Interesting Movie
Added 8/4/2009
There is not much else I can say about the film that has not already been said. Truly interesting film.
However, I can say that if you look at the negative reviews that have been posted here, you will not find anything bad about the actual film. Most, if not all, the negative reviews are political in nature. The reviewers have focused more on the message (or lack thereof) of the movie. There are no helpful reviews critiquing the acting, cinematography, character development, etc. This is an interesting, finely made film. Whether or not this film glorifies terrorism is irrelevant; what is more important is whether or not the scenes are executed properly. Do these types of conversations happen among these terrorists? Do "some" Palestinians see these terrorists as heroes? Do these terrorists have friends and families? The difference here is that these terrorists are given a face.
I can see why some people are offended by this film. It is indeed controversial, as this is the first time I have seen a film where the terrorists are given a "face". Movies like United 93 do not go into detail on how the terrorists ended up on their mission. Paradise Now focuses completely on how these terrorists ended up on this mission, and that is where the controversy stems from. You may be angry after you see this film, you may even be repulsed. But that is what makes this film so interesting. Highly recommended.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Watch and Understand
Added 7/11/2009
Being from Israel, this movie is bound to affect me in different ways. Hearing that this was about the Palestinian point of view, I mostly expected bias, but I simply had to watch this out of an intense curiosity to understand. I very much needed to get some insight regarding the people that are trying to kill me every day.
The movie's prime objective is to put a human face on the suicide bombers and to explain why they feel this is necessary. This is a good thing. I WANT to see these people as human beings and I want to understand them.
Two aspiring martyrs and one more peaceful-minded Arab girl influenced by Westerners are the protagonists. Their daily lives are explored, the constant tension and presence of the barriers and Israeli soldiers is shown, they play, work, discuss their existence and humiliations, and disagree on how to achieve freedom. Palestinian society is shown to glorify the bombers and decry collaborators as the ultimate humiliation, with home-made movies containing their last words being sold as populist entertainment (both martyrs and collaborators).
When it's time for our protagonist to make his own impassioned video, the camera breaks down, then he inserts a reminder for his mother about water filters. The procedure to convert this human who is just like us into a killer is shown to be a well-oiled machine run by professionals who are seen as legendary heroes of society. They are trained on everything from the mindset they need, to the technicalities of the bomb, to the technical fact that two angels will pick them up and take them to heaven as soon as they die. One bombing attempt goes wrong, the bombers suffer plenty of second thoughts and moral questions, they are affected by the sight of children, and finally, they go after paradise because they are driven into a corner, desperate and frustrated and want to go to heaven.
And now comes the discussion: Is the movie objective? Are the anti-Israel speeches made by the protagonist or by the director? Many reviewers claim this movie is objective and presents two sides; but the only two sides are on differing ways to fight the occupation of Israel.
The occupation is presented as an absolute evil, and the Israelis are claimed to have no morals by both 'sides'. The Israelis are after ethnic cleansing and the humiliation and control of Palestinians, but, claims the peace-loving girl, by bombing them up 'we are merely giving them an excuse to continue killing and humiliating us'. How on earth is this objective? It's a trick. By presenting a relatively moderate point of view, it gives the feeling of balance.
Here are some objective and verifiable facts to balance out the propaganda in this film: When the land was split into two nations, the first thing Palestinians did was attack. They lost (just barely), and Egypt and Jordan occupied their land for 20 years. When Palestinians attacked Jordan, they were killed and driven out by Jordanians and promptly went to make a bigger mess in Lebanon. When Egypt and Jordan attacked Israel, Israel took the Palestinian land from them. When Israel offered land for peace, they refused to talk and attacked again a few years later. Israel continues to occupy land that has been repeatedly used for aggression and murder, and every time peace talks are initiated, the Palestinians increase their attacks. When Israel forces out settlers to give them Gaza, instead of bulding a nation, they use it to attack Israel even harder.
And then we have the official Palestinian government's (Hamas) charter that says Israel does not have a right to exist, it must be destroyed, and that all talks with Israel are useless and bad. This is in writing and can be verified by anyone and yet the majority of Palestinians voted for Hamas and support suicide bombing. Even the word 'Palestine' is a symbol of occupation forced by Romans over the Jews. There were Jewish 'Palestinians' in this land continously for thousands of years way before the Muslims even existed, and yet we are occupiers? We have no right to exist? The only reason there were fewer Jews than Arabs here is because they were repeatedly thrown out or killed, and weren't allowed back in.
One serious mistake Israel made was to allow settlements on this land before the issues and partitions were settled. But if the Arabs had negotiated for peace back in the 1970s, the settlements wouldn't have had a chance to spread. And when push came to shove, Sharon uprooted settlements for the Palestinians in Gaza.
I and most other Israelis want the 'Palestinians' to have their land and freedom. I want to respect them, to treat them as neighbours, to trade with them. But every time we turn to them for peace, we get bombed. Yes, the barriers, curfews, and occupations are evil. But without them we get bombed every day. History has proven this over and over again. Every time we pull out they launch another attack. Every time we give them something, they use it against us to kill us. When they do get land they show no interest in building an economy and a nation, only to attack. So we have no choice but to keep 'humiliating' them. Otherwise we'd be dead. It's their official policy to kill us when we turn to them for peace. This is a fact, in writing, supported by a majority of their citizens, AND proven a dozen times over by history.
So going back to the movie: If what the movie shows is truly what Palestinians feel and think, and all they see is the occupation and Israeli soldiers ruining their lives and taking away their freedom, then it is an amazing phenomenon of blind rage that doesn't know when to quit or when to try alternatives. I agree that we are humiliating and killing them, but have they given us a choice?
I watched this movie to understand them, and now, unfortunately, I do. For this reason, I recommend this movie. But, as opposed to what another reviewer said, to understand is not to forgive.
I hope one day the Palestinians will understand our point of view. That we are willing to give them their own state and freedom as long as they don't want us dead and that they make us believe that over 60 years of continuous blind rage and religious hate are over. You want your own state? Then next time we come to you to talk peace for the umpteenth time, call a cease-fire, recognize us as potential neighbours and stop killing our children. It's that simple.
4 out of 5 people found this helpful.
|
close but not enough to the truth
Added 5/7/2009
one of the best movie about arabs, but not close enough to the truth
Ahmed Alkhedairy
Seattle, WA.
1 out of 3 people found this helpful.
|
A surgical strike against injustice!
Added 1/19/2009
PARADISE NOW is a very powerful and thought provoking film. As an American, I have always wondered about the degree of hate those people must possess to be suicide bombers. To give ones life just to hurt the other side - that's a pretty intense hate. BUT NO, that's not it at all. It's the idea of freedom. The same idea which created America. They are freedom fighters reduced to using the most precious thing a person possesses because they have little else.
I was stunned at the difference between the Israeli life and the Palestinians lives. It was like I stepped back in time, when in Palestine. The Palestinian side put me in mind of the Biblical Palestine that Jesus walked.
It was so enlightening to find out that their decision was NOT just hysterical fanatism as it's always portrayed in the Pro- Israeli media,
BUT RATHER a surgical strike against injustice.
My most favorite and thoughtful line in the entire film was when SAID explained to SUHA that the resistance is defined by the occupation and when he pointed out that they are the occupiers, oppressors, bulldozers but yet they are the victims! Ha, what a gross miscarriage of justice!
This film really opened my eyes to the "other side". My church, my schools, my neighborhood and town have all been awakened and are now looking deeper than just what the media tries to spoon feed us.
It certainly deserved all the awards and recognition it walked away with.
2 out of 2 people found this helpful.
|
"Identity: unidentified"
Added 8/24/2009
The Syrian bride is a Druze woman from the Golan Heights, (Syrian land that fell under Israeli occupation in 1967) who is getting married to a Druze man, who lives in Syria.
While getting to know the members of the bride's family, one can observe the struggle of people who are still loyal to the government of Syria but living under the authority of Israeli government. Once the movie gets to the point where she has to cross the border where the Israeli officials insist on stamping the passport as coming from Israel, and the Syrian officials insist on rejecting the stamp because the Golan Heights are Syrian land. Watching the detail that vacillate between bitter and comic, and wondering who's more stubborn, the Israelis or the Syrian, I was thrilled that the director chose to give an open ending, just like the struggle of these people.
This work witnesses the work of Israeli, Syrian, and Palestinian actors which is a great step in the process of peace (if anybody still remember it).
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
One woman's nightmare
Added 8/20/2009
I really liked this film. Having traveled internationally, I know the difficulties associated with obtaining the correct document with the correct stamp from the correct office. This film had the added emotional dimension of marriage and the accompanying social and family pressures. I laughed at times; at others I cried. I felt the anguish and frustration. This is not a documentary, but I can imagine it happening to someone. The film is not an action-packed thriller, but neither is it a chick flick. It's a film for the thoughtful.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Torn between two countries
Added 10/17/2008
A very balanced, sensitive, well-acted film that clearly portrays the problems faced by the Druze community on the Golan with its own culture and secretive religion being overly strident. The Druze on the Golan lived within Syria until 67 and within Israel after 67, but with family now on both sides of the border, they can't show complete loyalty to either side without creating serious problems with the other side, especially as the border isn't necessarily permanently fixed. So they remain split by the current border and can only shout at relatives on the other side. While it's possible to leave one country one country for the other, it will never be possible to return. In the movie, the Syrian Bride is to marry a man on the Syrian side whom she's never met and what should be a time of celebration becomes one of great sorrow as well as she will have to say goodbye forever to her family on the Golan.
But the film doesn't particularly condemn either the Syrians or the Israelis, just their effect on the Druze who are separate from both. The Druze are equally bedeviled by both bureaucracies. While the father of the bride has spent time in Israeli prison for unspecified political offenses, the family has no problem hiring an Israeli to photograph the wedding celebration. Life for the family in the Golan remains heavily complicated due to the political situation, but it goes on. Not all of the problems presented in the film are political either. The film presents the family's personal problems in the community with the forbidden inter-religious marriage and the older daughter's efforts to step outside traditional women's boundaries in her relationship with her own husband. One could hardly ask for more in one film.
3 out of 3 people found this helpful.
|
