The Difference a Paradise Now Makes to Regular Americans - Movie Review Example

 The film Paradise Now is about two best friends, Said and Khaled, who are recruited to do suicide attacks on Tel Aviv. The major theme of this movie, in my opinion, is the oppression of the Palestinians at the hands of the Israelis. And, in this way, the film would, and should, make a difference to ordinary Americans, simply because America seems to be reflexively pro-Israel, no matter what Israel does in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. This film makes it known that the Palestinians, indeed, have a reason for their terrorists attacks, including suicide bombers such as Said and Khaled. Said and Khaled express a real sense of frustration about the “never-ending occupation,” and about how the Palestinians are marginalized by the Israelis. For instance, in Said and Khaled’s televised manifestos, in which they effectively say “goodbye” to their loved ones, while explaining why they are doing what they are doing, Khaled explains that the Israelis have refused compromise and view allowing Palestinians dignity and respect would be tantamount to the suicide of the Jewish state. Khaled talks about how the Israelis have patently refused even the hint of there being two states on the land, which would seem, to a reasonable person, to be a reasonable compromise. When viewing this particular film, it becomes increasingly obvious that the United States, in always supporting Israel, is operating with a tunnel vision, probably because the Israelis are considered to be a friend to the United States, and the United States has a heavy Jewish population. What is actually right and wrong about the conflict apparently does not factor into the United States policy regarding the Israeli homeland. And, with such a powerful ally as the United States on the side of the Israelis in the Palestine-Israeli conflict, the Palestinians do not have a voice. This is why the suicide bombers, and the other terrorist acts, are occurring – it is because of this sense of desperation about their plight. From the way that the movie portrays the conflict, it would be as if Jim Crow were still the law of the United States’ land, and the treatment of the blacks in Jim Crow were countenanced and approved of by the rest of the world, and the rest of the world was constantly taking the side of the United States government in oppressing the black American. I would imagine if that were the case, the United States would have the kind of long-running, violent conflict, without end, that is seen in Israel. With good reason. Of course, only one side is being presented in this movie, which is fine – the movie does not have to be even-handed, nor should it be. It advocates a certain position, and this is the lens through which the audience views the overall conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians. That I came away from the movie impassioned about the shabby treatment of the Palestinians at the hand of the Israelis, and angry about how the United States is reflexively pro-Israel, which serves to only further oppress the Palestinians, means that the filmmaker has done his job. Intellectually, I understand that the conflict is much more complex than the movie shows, more complex than I would ever be able to grasp. However, this movie was very effective in portraying the side that it needs to. This is probably the reason why the film won so many accolades, such as an Oscar and a Golden Globe. One of the techniques that the filmmaker uses to make the film’s message compelling is that he uses the story of two ordinary Palestinians, and gives them a backstory. The filmmaker shows them, early on, relaxing with a hookah between them, after getting off of work at the automobile junkyard. We see that Said has a potential girlfriend, and we also see Said’s family at home – his mother, his younger brother, etc. We know that Said and Khaled are flesh and blood, which gives them a sense of pathos. Too often, one hears about a suicide bomber in this café or that bus, and figure that the person who did it is some religious zealot, or is “other.” The filmmaker took care to show that Said and Khaled were not “other,” nor were they religious zealots. Said has a loving mother, who clearly worries about him. Khaled, too, has a loving mother, although the audience does not get to see her. However, Khaled made sure, in his taped confessional about why he is about to do a suicide attack, to directly address his mother. He added, in his address about how the Palestinians are oppressed, an aside to his mother, in which he told her where to buy water filters at a discounted price. He also expressed concern that his family would get into trouble for what he is about to do. It is as if the filmmaker is trying to show that these are two ordinary men, two “good men” who only are involved with suicide bombing because they felt that they have no other choice in the matter. The filmmaker also makes use of the motif in this film. For instance, there is one unmistakable shot, right before the men are about to embark upon their suicide mission, which is meant to convey The Last Supper. There are twelve men around a long table, about to eat dinner, and the positions of the men around this table are virtually identical to the positions of the men around the table in Da Vinci’s masterpiece. This is one motif which is fleshed out by cinematography and direction, because the filmmaker obviously chose this shot and directed it in such a way that the audience is clear about the symbolism. The filmmaker is making the comparison to Jesus’ suffering and sacrifice, stating that the men’ sacrifice, while much less profound than Jesus’ sacrifice, nevertheless is one which his not for themselves, but for their people. Just like Jesus sacrificed himself for the good of mankind, the filmmaker is seeming to say, these men are sacrificing themselves so that, perhaps, one day, the Palestinians may have a better life. Just like Jesus sacrificed himself for a cause bigger than himself, so are Said and Khaled. This image may seem a little overblown and hyperbolic, but it is clear what the filmmaker is saying about the men’ sacrifices. Another motif is that of water purification. This comes up in Khaled’s aside to his mother, as he is filming his goodbye and justification. As stated above, Khaled tells his mother where to find water filters for cheaper. At first, it seems as if this is a kind of throwaway line – that it is meant to show Khaled’s concern and love for his mother, because he is being a “good son” by trying to help her out in his final days. However, the cab driver who picks up Said later, after Said is on the run, not wanting to do the suicide bombings. Although it is relatively unclear, it seems that he cabdriver is Israeli, for he states that the water in Israel is unclean because of the Palestinians. Therefore, it seems that the issue of water purification is another theme. The water purification could refer to Jesus again, because water is symbolic of Jesus. Jesus walked on water, and Jesus turned water into wine. Water is also used in baptism rituals in many different religions involved in Christianity. Water purification could also refer to the overall discriminatory way that the Israelis treat the Palestinians. The implication is that the Israelis see the Palestinians as dirty, and this is why the water is unclean. Perhaps the cabdriver was implying that the Palestinians are like rodents or pests, an overrun of which would also result in impure drinking water. This, in turn, would bring to mind the Nazis, who conflated the Jews in Germany to rats and other vermin. At any rate, to state that the Palestinians are the reason why the drinking water is impure is dehumanizing to them. Said obviously shows his displeasure with the cabdriver’s remarks, because he does not engage the cabdriver in conversation and looks obviously annoyed. Perhaps Said was tempted to detonate the bomb right there in the cab, taking out the cabdriver. One would not blame him if this were the case. As far as the lighting and the sets, the filmmaker obviously used the lighting and sets to convey a sense of desperation in the men. Most of the lighting was dark, and most of the sets were desperate and rundown. From the very beginning of the movie, which is set in a junkyard, the audience knows how these two men live. Even when Said and Khaled are relaxing on a hilltop, smoking a hookah between them, the overall impression is one of desperation, simply because the audience can see the crowded city below. It is clear that the men are of that crowded city, and that the hilltop – with its relaxing breeze, and greenery – is simply a sojourn for the men before they have to go down to the crowded city and be a part of the morass. In turn, the image of the crowded city denotes how the Palestinians are forced to live – the Israelis have taken most of their land, and have forced them into a small part of land, in which all the Palestinians must live. The darkness and dreariness of the sets continue throughout the film. The men meet in an abandoned building, which is decaying and depressing. Said’s home is dilapidated, and the scenes with his mother show this. His mother is cooking in a cramped kitchen, and it is evident that the home has peeling paint and is in poor condition. Said eats with his family in darkness. Darkness and dilapidation permeate the early scenes, which gives a sense of depression and gloom. Ironically, it is not until the men actually have the bombs strapped onto their bodies, and are going on their mission, does the sun come out and the light is allowed to filter throughout the men’s lives. Perhaps the filmmaker is stating that the darkness and depression is symbolic of the oppression that the men feel, while the light is symbolic of their liberation – they soon will be dead, which is one kind of liberation, but, more importantly, their acts are a part of the larger scheme of things and will help bring light to the Palestinian people. However, that said, the film also makes clear that Said and Khaled’s sacrifice will not really change anything. As long as the Israelis have the superior army, and as long as the Israelis are supported by the powerful Western world, especially the United States, the Palestinian oppression will not change, no matter how many suicide bombers demonstrate. The men know this, but, even so, they want to do their part. While the filmmaker uses a variety of cinematic techniques to convey powerful symbolism, there are also important sequences throughout the film which are vital to the storyline. One of the sequences involves Said and Khaled on the hill, smoking a hookah, relaxing after the end of a stressful day at the junkyard. The opening scene shows an Israeli attempting to cheat the men, by stating that he would not pay for the repair to his car because it wasn’t straight, even though it clearly was. After a day like that, the men just needed to relax, and this scene is important because it shows the bond between the men, as well as conveys to the audience that these are two ordinary men. They bond together, they relax together, they smoke hookahs together – they are not the wild-eyed zealots that people may think of when they think of suicide bombers. Moreover, the scene is important because it shows the bond between the two men. It shows the friendship, and the audience is privy to this bond, friendship and fondness for one another early on. This is important, because it makes the closing scene all the more powerful and poignant. In the closing scene, Said tricks Khaled into thinking that they are both going to abandon the mission, and neither is going to go ahead with the suicide bomb. Said puts Khaled into a cab, and Khaled thinks that Said is going to get into the cab as well. However, Said does not get into the cab, and the cab drives off without him. Khaled, of course, is devastated, knowing that his lifelong friend would soon be dead. Therefore, the early bonding scenes, which show the friendship, is necessary to give this penultimate scene the emotional heft that it actually has. Another important scene is the scene where Khaled is doing his confessional, and tells his mother about the water filters. This scene is important because it humanizes Khaled further, and, since Khaled’s home life is not featured in the way that Said’s home life is, not as much is known about the bond between Khaled and his family as is known about the bond between Said and his family. This confessional gives the audience a clue about the fondness that Khaled has for his mother, and shows him to be a good son. Once again, showing Khaled as a good son is in sharp contrast to the usual vision that one might have of a suicide bomber - suicide bombers tend to be stereotyped as fanatical men with no real ties to other people, aside from the people who recruit these individuals to do what they do. One scene, or one shot rather, is also important to the movie, and that is a shot where Jamal, the leader of the resistance group with recuited Said and Khaled, has a look of pensive regret. This shot is important, because the audience realizes, perhaps for the first time, that Jamal does have human feelings about his recruits. Previously, Jamal is seen joking around with the men about the mission, and being very nonchalant about it. For instance, Khaled inquires about what happens after the bomb goes off. Jamal kind of brushes off the question, stating simply that two angels will pick them up. When Khaled presses him about this, Jamal changes the subject. Jamal appears to be insensitive to the fact that the two will soon be dead, although he isn’t necessarily a bad guy. His look in that one shot, however, reveals his true feelings. A fourth scene which is important is the scene where Said is telling about being a part of a mob of demonstrators who burned down a cinema. Said’s erstwhile girlfriend, Suha, asks Said why he would burn down a cinema – what did the cinema ever do to him? Said explains that the demonstration was because of the fact that the Israelis were refusing to hire West Bank workers, and the demonstration resulted. This scene is important because it ties some of the earlier scenes together, and it also gives a picture of the discrimination that the Palestinians are feeling at the hands of the Israelis. The earlier scene that it ties together is the scene at the first where the fat Israeli man is trying to cheat the men by not paying for the repair to his car – because it “wasn’t straight.” This is an example of the discrimination that the Palestinians are facing as well, so the story about the cinema makes this earlier scene make more sense. It is as if verbalizing about the discrimination sheds light on the earlier acts of discrimination. Moreover, the scene gives voice to the sense of frustration that the Palestinians feel. Obviously, the Israelis are more or less in charge of the country, which means that the Palestinians must rely upon them for jobs. If the Israelis will not hire them, then they will not work. At that point, they would not be able to live. So, burning down the cinema is one way to voice the frustration, and the story that Said tells brings light to this. The film also reveals much about the personality and interests of the filmmaker, Hany Abu-Assad. It is obvious that Abu-Assad is pro-Palestinian, and he has an interest in demonstrating to the world the plight of the Palestinians. His interest obviously lies in recognizing that much of the world is on Israel’s side, which gives Israel the power to do whatever it wants in the conflict. He obviously wants to show the world that there is another side to the conflict, even if his voice is futile in the end. As far as the personality of the filmmaker, he lends his characters humanizing depth – they have humor, they have dreams, they have regrets, they have families, they have love, etc. – and the filmmaker’s personality shines through the characters. Just as they are humanized, the filmmaker is as well. As far as the insight given to the country’s unique customs and traditions, one of the customs which is highlighted is the use of the hookah. The hookah is mildly popular in the United States, but it seems to be a part of the everyday life of the two men. Another tradition which is highlighted in the film is the ritual of cutting the hair and shaving the beards of the two men before they go on their mission. Previously, both men had longish hair, and facial hair, but they had to be clean shaven and have short hair before the mission. What this symbolizes is unclear, but it seems to be a ritual or a tradition for the bombers to go through this. Conclusion Paradise Now is a film which is told through a very distinct point of view, that of the pro-Palestinian. This is obvious through the choices that the filmmaker makes – he makes the Israelis look discriminatory and the Palestinians are humanized. This is a very different worldview from what Americans are accustomed to seeing, but it is very effective. The two bombers are humanized throughout the film. In the process, the filmmaker makes not only the bombers themselves sympathetic, but the entire Palestinian cause. Read More