Paradise Now: Cutting the Flesh - Essay Example

Cutting the Flesh First, let us start from the end. The final shot of the movie shows Said’s eyes. He sits in a commercial bus with Israeli civilians and soldiers. Then, everything cuts to white. In fact, Hany Abu-Assad offers us a choice, and freedom to think over the ending, whether Said detonated the bomb or not. There is no definite answer, as the scale pans of pros and cons of detonating it are filled equally. Two Palestinian friends got used to stay together. They have become recruited by an extremist group, and they are getting prepared for performing terroristic acts on the Israeli territory.

It seems that once the explosives are fixed on their bodies, they have the only way left. However, they are people with feelings, memories, persuasions, and so on, and they prefer not to choose the shortest way to Allah. Hany Abu-Assad stated in one of his interviews that the movie is claimed to demonstrate another way on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In fact, it is. However, the key problem is essentially deeper. The pictures and events shown are just the shell that covers a more serious issue: the price of a human life with all the manifestations of humanity and brutality.

While Steven Spielberg puts some general ideological considerations on the first place, Hany Abu-Assad, in his turn, aims to fathom human consciousness. He tries to understand people who are on the edge of emotional and physical explosion (breakdown would be a too general term). Is the idea worth of human life? Especially if this is a radical one. The movie dodges this question in the beginning; however, the audience will find it out through dialogues. The real price of existence is stated. Surely, the images of the protagonists do not coincide with the images of terrorists that we can see in the news.

Moreover, the conflicts that form the basis of the plot, a priori cause the indignation of the certain people. It is quite reasonable, as cutting the flesh always hurts. Political Perspective “Paradise Now” can be divided into two parts. The fist one is essentially more difficult for perception in comparison with the second one. It seems that the action barely reaches the culmination, and then rolls to the end, rushing to show everything that has not been told yet. The director aims to make the movie fit the European standards by refusing from Eastern narration principles.

It reminds of a bitter pill covered with sweet covering for the European audience could swallow it. Though, it is difficult to digest. Regardless of the initial idea, the movie makes us empathize with terrorists. Surely, the political audience will not be able to accept it, as politicians will never be able to live in unison with the “aliens”. Even if these aliens wish to show the real price of life. Since the 1980s the fight against terrorism is regarded as the key pivot of the American presidentship.

Every US leader considers his life debt to struggle against the global evil in the face of Islamic terrorists, and the audience have already got used to the consideration that terrorists can not be humane. Surely, this means war, and the price of human feelings and thoughts lowers. The matter of violence is not discussed, as there are no non-violent wars. Hence, neither politicians, nor their peoples think at the notion that violence originates the violence in response. It is not shown directly, however, the audi