wah wah wah....Top Film Choices

 
             

wah - wah - wah

           Three different styles of film depicting human reaction in adverse conditions. One, fiction, based on reality and filmed on location. The other, documentary, based on fact and filmed on location. The latter, fiction, based on recent history also filmed on location

Fictional film based on reality                   

Paradise Now   Director Hany Abu-Assad  Netherlands/Germany 2005

I  came across this film in 2006 - and would still recommend it - I nearly didn't go, it was a warm Saturday in summer. I looked up what was on at the local art house cinema; there were two choices, Lemming with Charlotte Rampling, a thriller cert 15 (France 2005) or Paradise Now a film about suicide bombers cert 15, filmed in the West Bank city of Nablus in 2002 and released by Warner Independent Productions in 2005.

Now, I am not good with excessive violence in films, but I think I chose to see the latter over the thriller, because of its certificate, finding the subject a baffling one, I thought I might actually be able to watch this and get something out of it, how right....

This is the blurb describing the film:

Paradise Now   Warner Independent Pictures with Kais Nashef, Ali Suliman, Lubna Azabal, Amer Hlehel

Paradise Now chronicles 48 hours in the lives of two young Palestinians, who are recruited by a nameless organization for a bombing in Tel Aviv. After spending a last evening with their families - to whom they're forbidden to say goodbye - they set off with the bombs strapped to their bodies. But with pressure mounting, time running out, and passions running high, there's no way to know which way they will go...a quietly terrifying film, which strives to understand the character's actions without justifying them, while articulating the futility of violence.

A very simple fact runs through this film, both men are living as ordinary a life as they can, but the meaning of that seems stifled by poverty and lack of freedom. That is the starting point, which the director never loses sight of.

Humour also played a part, the sort that we often miss in our own daily lives.

I told a friend, who is from the Lebanon about it, he said would go and see it. His comments about the incredulous situation in Nablus, the West Bank and Gaza in general, were, that a whole generation had grown up with this. The most disturbing piece of news for him, was when he read about refugee children trying to get themselves arrested, so they might have a slightly better life.

Ultimately, due to the subject matter it is a potentially very contentious film, and has created many different points of view.

These real life issues generally receive far less attention in the media, than when a creative piece is made about the same subject. Or at least provokes more debate.

The wide range of films which draw on real life issues as a base, readily, seem to be taken as a literal representation of reality. For example the reviews of David Cronenberg's latest film, Eastern Promises tells a tale about the underbelly of London life (which Cronenberg sees made up of mainly eastern European migrant criminals). The ease at which critics took this tale as a true mirror of life in London doesnt acknowledge the directors reputation for violent fictional fantasy.

The Paradise Now storyline is no less complex but does not need to fit into a catagory like a Cronenberg film. Directed and acted with great sensitivity keeping the personal lives of the characters very much at the forefront, the viewer never loses sight of the fact that these are human beings, albeit desperate, disaffected, and divided by their own people. Thus enabling the exploration of questions so often ignored in media coverage, like the motives, intentions and psychological states, that could result in such an act of gross inhumanity.

Ken Loach's latest film, The Wind That Shakes the Barley, has caused similar reactions in the U.K,(Loach never one to shy away from a political or social point of view) Chose to make a film about the events in 1920's Ireland, and because of the close physical and historical proximity between the U.K. and Ireland, a situation, which has been fictionalized into a film, created, amongst some, a vehement reaction, even though it occurred all those years ago.  A reaction which appears to have remained undiluted since the war of independence a good two generations apart. Although not fully resolved, the situation has changed since that time, but this flim sparked heated debate, not suprisingly, as old wounds and memories were jogged.

This is why, I think it is a good  thing that issues like this are raised, but by keeping the human element personal, without sensationalizing, or being biased, as this tends to give creative pieces a propaganda slant, so losing their impact.

Quote; Mary Riddell, Guardian Newspaper, 11.06.06

'George Monbiot fights back against the charge that Loach is glorifying the IRA's battle against the hated British auxiliaries, the Black and Tans. The film, in his view is a metaphor for another struggle. 'If we knew more about Ireland, the invasion of Iraq might never have happened', Monbiot writes.

Well, yes. But it is a long way from the shot-up hen coops of County Cork to the concrete low-rise outside Baghdad where Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed last week by US air strikes. Those seeking auguries from 1920, when Loach's film begins, should look not to the IRA but to the rebellion of the same year that started by the Euphrates and killed or maimed 8,450 Iraqis and 2,269 of their British occupiers. History is specific. Forget Ireland. If we knew more about Iraq, the invasion of Iraq might never have happened.

But it's not the questionable parallel that bothers me...The disturbing thing is the fury unleashed by a mere movie. Modern war, routinely fought from the nations armchairs, is now being prosecuted from the back row of the stalls.

Cut, for a moment, to real war. A boy stands on a canal bank, his feet unsteady on the slippery mud. He cannot swim and he suffers from asthma. He is 15 and he must be very afraid. Somehow he ends up in the water. The witness claims to have seen his head bob to the surface and his body flail then he is gone.

Last week, three British soldiers were cleared of killing Ahmed Jabar Karheem, amid howls of anger that a 'politically motivated' case was ever being brought. 'Outright betrayal', screamed a Sun pundit. 'They did their duty and were hung out to dry', complained a defence QC. But by what divine right are serving soldiers above the law?.

Nowhere in the ensuing rage was there any whisper of regret  about  a boy who died, or sorrow for his parents who reportedly stood vigil for a day by the Shatt-al-Arab canal until  their bedraggled child's body was pulled out.

A boy dies struggling in a muddy canal, and his only eulogy is the wail of fury from supporters of the soldiers cleared of killing him. But Ahmed Jabar Karheem's day of remembrance may come. A Ken Loach of the future might make a film about him. And then people will weep or rage or brood on what truths his short life might offer about some unrelated war in some other land.'

A lot of people seem to have very different views on films of this nature, if you read some of the comments. Without doubt though, Paradise Now was made with a sensitivity that you don't often see. I haven't seen the director, Hany Abu-Assad's other films, but the only other person I can think of is Ken Loach, mentioned above, who does not direct in quite the same way, as he always has a definate social or political stand point, but has a similar effect when he touches on contentious issues.

It could also be argued that Abu-Assads lack of inclusion of Israeli life and the fear and loathing that is inherent within many parts of Israeli society, created by Palestinian violence was not seen from the Israeli perspective, but this was a film about suicide bombers, and the immediate lives of these two men, which, in all fairness I believe Assad did acknowlegde their place within the wider picture of Arab Israeli divide.

An example of this occurred  in a scene when Said went over the border for the first time ever in his life, in an initial attempt to bomb. What he found were ordinary Israelis stood at a bus stop, not dissimilar to Palestinians just over the border. This scene managed to depict very simply, the gaping chasm that is created by isolation and segregation, and brought it back to a human perspective.

This is not dissimilar to the way some films about 'legitimate' wars depict troops on the ground, when faced with their enemy. The enemy, they find, are not unlike themselves, they have families, lives, problems of their own etc., but the anonymity of war hides these facts.The point at which enemy faces enemy is thought out strategically from a distance, but when the crucial time comes the reality of the moment is kill or be killed.

Suicide bombing is different, but it still has to be organized, like troops, the difference being they 'go into battle' alone or in small groups. One crucial difference, so they can perform the task is the isolated bomber, needs to believe totally in what they are doing. His victims may not be threatening him at that crucial moment, but the nature of their presence and what they stand for, along with the symbolic act of bombing, has to be in the mind set. Once on a mission of this sort the ability not to complete has dramatically diminished by the time the bomber has reached his destination, in many cases there is no choice as they are physically llinked to the bomb. Thus the absence of an enemy gun pointing at the perpetrator to prompt a kill or be killed reaction at that stage is irrelevant.

Paradise Now does not, I believe, set out to bias one way or the other, but what it does do is try to understand the mind of someone who has been chosen or chooses to perform an act of this nature.

To view filmed interviews with the director and actors, about the film, plus excerpts, click on the directors name above.

in a similar vein, but a different style this documentary stands out amongst others with its unfettered projection of the affects that violence and fear have on very basic recognizable  human levels,  rendering it non subjective, accessible  and understandable.

Both this and Paradise Now showed little or no actual violence and subsequently were able to reach a wider, younger audience.

Documentary Film

Iraq In Fragments cert 15 US Director James Longley 2006

 
This documentary film was created over two years, in three areas of war torn Iraq.
The structure of the film is divided into three documenting the thoughts and giving a brief but succinct insight into the lives of three young people growing up in the turmoil.

Specifically a fatherless child in Baghdad of Sunni faith, a youth in Baghdad of Shia and a young adolescent growing up in the north Kurdish countryside.
What is most compelling about this documentary is its  lack of intervention, the narrative is by the three youngsters set against a visually sensitive backdrop depicting their normality of everyday life.

During times when the relativity of individual circumstance, in a dangerous and diverse world is increasingly pushed to the fore, accentuated by polemic attitudes, with indecisive and non committal stances, through to dogmatic religious and political belief systems. The pragmatic empathy needed to bring insight, is a very rare and precious commodity. Not least in film, be it fiction based on actualities, or documentaries based on facts.

This piece of film manages to deliver first hand the psychological reasoning of people caught up in very traumatic and difficult times. On very basic levels the film brings across recognizable human reactions to loss, uncertainty, violence, and perceived unequal safety.
With no distractions other than the poetically shot scenes and the narrative, the audience is left to make its own mind up based on the facts as shown by the director within the films 1 and half hours.

It could be argued that the director may have filmed the facts in a biased way ie; the Sunni boy's experiences, could be said to have tear jerk reaction from the subject matter, although certainly not through the delivery, the boy was surviving tough circumstances. Whereas the Shiite youth, much older, had his religious awakening documented, which included a fair amount of footage of self flagellation by Sadr followers through the streets, but again this was a fact being shown. How much footage needed to get the point across was in the hands of the director, no doubt he bore that in mind when thinking about his potential audience's reaction to the young Sunni's plight and to the type of Shia religious ritual depicted.

It possibly becomes more difficult to balance all aspects within a specific time frame, when there will inevitably be facts left out, but I believe the director did a very good job of balancing the three differing ages and backgrounds of these young people and their personal reactions to their immediate surroundings.

Fictional Film based on recent history

The Lives of Others cert 15 Germany  2006 Director Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck with Martina Gedeck, Ulriche Muhe, Sebastian Koch

oscar winning best foreign language film
set in pre 1989 East Berlin's Totalitarian
Stasi run state

This film is set 5 years before the downfall of communist East Berlin, the story centers on an activist playwright and his actress girlfriend. Both professions notoriously monitored, for any deviations from the status quo during the stasi years.

It follows the appointment of Captain Gerd Wiesler, who hopes to boost his career by taking on the job of bugging and spying on the couple.

Over the following months the couple’s intimate lives are revealed to Wiesler. The depth of their creativity makes him very aware of the emptiness of his own life, which is echoed in his lonely existence within the system.

There is an element of Schindlers List about the storyline, as Wiesler faces his own internal crisis of conscience. But although the film can be seen as uplifting and in praise of human compassion set against the backdrop of this tragic, claustrophobic and paranoid era. It has been discussed that in the reality of communist East Berlin an individual would never have been allowed nor would have been able to have such a crisis of conscience take place.

The system in this particular totalitarian state as opposed, say, to that of apartheid South Africa, which had opposing ‘sides’. This system ruled over all its people and the ones closest to the system were under just as much scrutiny, if not more than the other inhabitants.The scrutiny was backed up by having state jobs delegated to more than one person, so no individual would ever have had complete control over any one task, especially doing surveillance. 

Having said that, the simple act of a human having the ability to change their mind during such a pressurizing regime, offers hope.

I do have to say though, the apparent reconciliatory nature of the film, after the wall came down, was in stark contrast to the general feelings that were shown at the time. All the records from the regime went on public display for people to trace family members who had disappeared, but this happened for only two years, as it prompted many bloody reprisals against the stasi police who had since become ordinary civilians.

As with so many films made after a relatively short period of time when there has been dramatic change within society. The need for openness and truth emerging from a cloudy and secretive past, can become distorted in the pursuit of just that, through blame. Hence people directly involved in the former republic during the time the film was set have had differing reactions to it as a true portrayal of how the events could have happened.  Leaving the cold statistics speaking as truth.   

After the state was dismantled, however a kind of openess emerged and it is true to say the stasi generally became employed, not, as depicted in the film doing a job they were over qualified for, but, were snapped up as private detectives, managers (they were highly trained in psychological management of people), and estate agents. Much of the press and literature seemed to be preoccupied with the now and moving forward, and not the recent past of the GDR. Of course, not surprisingly the recognition of what happened has not yet been confidently embraced by everyone. With accusations of denial on behalf of the people who suffered at the hands of the stasi police and claims of victimization on behalf of the stasi, who under that kind of regime were only ever given credit for part of a job. So the ability to accept responsibility for wider actions, seems not to be readily forth coming.

The faith in human nature shown in this film, could come across as biased in an unintentional way. If you consider the embittered circumstances that these people found themselves in. The film could be seen to promote the idea that a stasi ‘pawn’ could possibly have an individual change of heart. That is not to say the stasi were and are human and were used by the state. But the nature of such a secretive police force would have inevitably attracted certain kinds of people and no doubt too there was an element within that who had their own agendas. But as I said before it does offer hope, the main key in this kind of film at the present time detracts not from the stasi as having an individual opinion, if that could ever be, whether good or bad, but, the terrible anonymity of perpetrators of the state which, should, I think have been the focus.

The history of Germany over the last 80 years has faced two major totalitarian states and has suffered the denial and fighting for subsequent truths.

So the film, I think, does have a place in documenting the history of the former East Berlin, and is beautifully shot within all of the former republic's austerity.

But in the mean time maybe someone is making a film, not about an individual’s redeeming act, but how to avoid the individual being subsumed in the first place.