I believe that the petitions regarding Paradise Now are complex, in part because the history of this conflict (and the continued actions of each side) are so complex themselves. I didn’t really agree whole-heartedly with either of them, though my overall stance is for the counter-petition—mainly because I am against the censorship of free dialogue and commentary. To me, as with the petitions for and against Paradise Now’s Oscar nomination, the fighting between Palestinians and Israelis is one in which it is impossible to “take a side.” (I’m discovering more and more that this is very often the case in conflicts such as this, once one is provided with a more complete, unbiased history.)
It is particularly hard to take a side, in any global conflict, with the knowledge of all the influence and politically driven prejudices one encounters in the media (and I guess is seemingly easier to take a side without this sense of distrust towards a biased, policy driven media.) Similarly, the controversy between Israel and Palestine is extremely complicated; the more violence that is committed, the more it is used in turn… and everyone thus becomes a villain. To quote Suha, “there’s no difference between victim and occupier if you kill…” “you keep giving Israel the excuse to fight with your violence.”
The original petition is concerned with the fact that the undersigned see the film as generally legitimizing Palestinian suicide bombers, making their actions seem valid to the viewer. They attest that the characters portrayed provide a humanized view of suicide bombers, which, according to the petition, thereby glorifies their ideology and the means by which they fight for it...
I just can’t even write anymore without first injecting my opinion that this is a fairly ludicrous argument. The petition goes on to note, “I watched the movie Paradise Now trying to understand what it is trying to say, what message it carries. That the murderer is human? He is not. That he has doubts? He has none. After all, he is willing to kill himself along with his victims.” How in the world can this writer make such absolute claims? Particularly when these elements were, in my opinion, exactly the film’s message.
Of course a murderer is human, they are capable of having doubts (and are likely to), and their motivations are of interest to people who would eventually like to see peace and are willing to think beyond violence to attain it. To ignore this, to argue absolutely against the fact that real, motivated people commit these acts in my opinion just promotes the continued stifling of any progress. To ignore the fact that such conflicts are complicated just makes it easy to decide who is “right” and keep things just the way they are.
For comparison’s sake, I wondered how many bonafide, Oscar winning movies glorify one side over another? And perhaps these films serve to validate a “side” that is more acceptable, which in turn makes their nomination and win at least tolerable to a majority… I did a quick internet search on Oscar winning films from 2001 and 2002 (in part because the films made during these years reflected the tumultuous times following September 11th, and the broadened base of attention towards terrorism and the conflicts in the Middle East… which I felt maybe prompted more pro-West storylines in major films, even more than usual.) Movies that made this list were Black Hawk Down, The Pianist, and Pearl Harbor. Since I haven’t seen any of these movies, and only know their general premises, I can’t say that I’m making a totally informed argument here… but my sense is that as long as a film portrays a side which MOST (American/Western) people agree is the “right” side, then the Oscar can be won with little conflict. (Two of these films glorify the actions of the United States in war, and the other shows the horrors of the Holocaust.) This is all pretty uncomplicated, argument wise: the United States—due much to the fact that they were participants in a war, regardless—committed violent acts against others. And yet, somehow humanizing those characters, the same who commit acts of violence against others, is okay… as long as most agree that they were in the right.
This then leads me to reflect on how one-sided our media coverage is regarding the Israel/Palestine conflict (duh,) and how maybe we’re a little touchier about seeing a side we don’t see much of… again, its easy to villainize a group of people if you don’t have to actually think of them as humans, with opinions and histories.
Ok, so my main question is, what’s wrong with a humanized view of humans? Isn’t education and knowledge the path to conflict resolution? If everyone continues to see through the people and only look at them as opposition, then the violent acts being committed would continue to be so much easier to carry out.
The original petition uses this humanizing view to strengthen its own plea: the petition writer’s young Israeli son was killed by a Palestinian suicide bomber—this awful experience of loss is used as a basis for requesting a retraction of the Oscar nomination for this film. But using this logic, to suppress a point of view due to the fact that they have been involved with violent conflicts would be to censor almost the entire world. How many Palestinian mothers or fathers are mourning the loss of their child from a violent act of war? Please know, I certainly do not intend to seem as though I am diminishing the loss of this man’s son, because it is horrific and unimaginable to me… yet I feel it is important to note that seeing both sides of a conflict, and really connecting to their perspectives, is imperative to reaching a resolution.
Friday, January 9, 2009
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
scenes from Zinat
The film opens on Zinat, the unmarried village health care worker, serving community members at what seems to be the health care clinic for the area. In this opening scene, she attempts to promote the use of (Western) immunization and milk/formula products to a character we will soon know as Ashraf, only to be heatedly refused. Ashraf is mistrustful of Western medicine, (possibly representing a broader mistrust of the West in general?) and believes that her children will be harmed by the injections.
This scene sets up Zinat’s role in the community as a caretaker of the disadvantaged, while also introducing some of the community members’ disdain for Western ideas (centered here on Western medicine,) and similarly for Zinat’s extended role as a health care provider—a professional position not as commonly held by a woman.
In another early scene, Hamed, the man who wishes to marry Zinat, tries to help his mother with some of the housework—she scolds him and reminds him of her duty to do “woman’s work.” From this, she segues into a discussion of Zinat, proclaiming that she “isn’t interested in housework,” and thereby an unsuitable wife for Hamed. It was at this point that I wondered about Hamed and his perspective on the cultural norms —in attempting to help his mother in this scene, why is he now subtly challenging the stereotypical duties he has grown up understanding? Why would he be interested in Zinat if resistance to the norm was not becoming part of his perspective?
Zinat’s plight is clearly illustrated from this point on in the film—she enjoys working, learning more about medicine, and using her profession to aid the poor, the sick, and particularly the children of her community. Yet Zinat’s family—and the family of her prospective husband—do not approve of her aspirations. The pressures of the cultural norm on each other (within the community,) predominantly on Zinat and Hamed, eventually align to force Zinat to quit her job for the sake of getting married and fulfilling a more traditional role.
After Zinat is forcibly banned from working (at the clinic proper or in practicing medicine anywhere in the village,) a government official comes by her family’s home, confronting the father regarding Zinat’s absence at the clinic. The government sponsored some of Zinat’s medical training in return for a five-year contract at the clinic—she had yet to fulfill this contract and was expected to continue working at the clinic (or her father was to bear the cost of compensation to the government.)
I feel that this scene is significant in portraying the more secular point of view held by many in Iran in the early 1990’s. The government was, at that point, allowing women to participate in the educational system and fulfill professional roles in society—while traditional values held that these were not a married woman’s role, a major shift in perspective was taking hold. The shifts between secularist and fundamentalist rule in Iran seems to be simultaneously portrayed in the film, as the younger generation is resistant to the older, more traditional generation's ideas.
An alternate ending to the film could be, instead of renouncing the cultural norm by accompanying Zinat on the truck to pursue further medical care for Ashraf’s daughter, Hamed might choose to stay in the village. This would convey the message that Hamed was still conflicted, and wishes to continue living by the more traditional customs and roles. But what would happen to Zinat? After her trip to get further healthcare for the child, would she come back and continue to resist the more conventional role? If she came back, would she persevere in her objective to work in healthcare or would she again find herself pressured to align with a more traditional role in her community? Or would she even come back? Then what? And what are the current implications in the culture for not staying married and fulfilling your "obligations"?
This scene sets up Zinat’s role in the community as a caretaker of the disadvantaged, while also introducing some of the community members’ disdain for Western ideas (centered here on Western medicine,) and similarly for Zinat’s extended role as a health care provider—a professional position not as commonly held by a woman.
In another early scene, Hamed, the man who wishes to marry Zinat, tries to help his mother with some of the housework—she scolds him and reminds him of her duty to do “woman’s work.” From this, she segues into a discussion of Zinat, proclaiming that she “isn’t interested in housework,” and thereby an unsuitable wife for Hamed. It was at this point that I wondered about Hamed and his perspective on the cultural norms —in attempting to help his mother in this scene, why is he now subtly challenging the stereotypical duties he has grown up understanding? Why would he be interested in Zinat if resistance to the norm was not becoming part of his perspective?
Zinat’s plight is clearly illustrated from this point on in the film—she enjoys working, learning more about medicine, and using her profession to aid the poor, the sick, and particularly the children of her community. Yet Zinat’s family—and the family of her prospective husband—do not approve of her aspirations. The pressures of the cultural norm on each other (within the community,) predominantly on Zinat and Hamed, eventually align to force Zinat to quit her job for the sake of getting married and fulfilling a more traditional role.
After Zinat is forcibly banned from working (at the clinic proper or in practicing medicine anywhere in the village,) a government official comes by her family’s home, confronting the father regarding Zinat’s absence at the clinic. The government sponsored some of Zinat’s medical training in return for a five-year contract at the clinic—she had yet to fulfill this contract and was expected to continue working at the clinic (or her father was to bear the cost of compensation to the government.)
I feel that this scene is significant in portraying the more secular point of view held by many in Iran in the early 1990’s. The government was, at that point, allowing women to participate in the educational system and fulfill professional roles in society—while traditional values held that these were not a married woman’s role, a major shift in perspective was taking hold. The shifts between secularist and fundamentalist rule in Iran seems to be simultaneously portrayed in the film, as the younger generation is resistant to the older, more traditional generation's ideas.
An alternate ending to the film could be, instead of renouncing the cultural norm by accompanying Zinat on the truck to pursue further medical care for Ashraf’s daughter, Hamed might choose to stay in the village. This would convey the message that Hamed was still conflicted, and wishes to continue living by the more traditional customs and roles. But what would happen to Zinat? After her trip to get further healthcare for the child, would she come back and continue to resist the more conventional role? If she came back, would she persevere in her objective to work in healthcare or would she again find herself pressured to align with a more traditional role in her community? Or would she even come back? Then what? And what are the current implications in the culture for not staying married and fulfilling your "obligations"?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
