Time of Favor/Paradise Now

  I took an assload (it's O.K., I have an English degree) of notes on Time of Favor. In fact, now that I'm going over them, I wish I had written my essay about the movie. I just find that there's so much to talk about. Especially comparatively. In many of the movies we've watched lately, rationality comes from outside the main group, from questioning. It comes from characters like Suha, Korvis, and Mookie (among others, of course, like Michal, but these illustrate my point). And in Time of Favor especially, questioning and doubt are huge themes.

But I won't talk about that or the 10 other themes I took notes on and for which I wrote down quotes. I want to talk about the suicide bombing in Time of Favor compared to the suicide bombing in Paradise Now.

To be perfectly straightforward, I'm not sure I'd classify Pini's action in Time of Favor as a suicide bombing. Yes, he was going to blow stuff up; yes, he would've died during the commission of that crime, but I think he used the suicide bombing as a cover for just plain ol' suicide.

In Paradise Now, Said and Khaled chose  to become suicide bombers for a variety of reasons. They believed in martyrdom, they believed it was the only way to fight the Israelis, they each wanted to atone for the sins of their fathers. And they were, to a degree at least, manipulated by Jamal and Abu-Karem. In Time of Favor, the idea of fighting for Israel, of being a lion and not a dog (see Philip's blog) is first presented by Rabbi Meltzer. But Pini takes this idea and twists it until it is not only far from what the rabbi presented, but until it no longer has any real tie to faith. Pini uses this idea to lie to and manipulate his friend Itamar because he knows Itamar will go along with "the rabbi's plan."

Where Said and Khaled are ashamed of their fathers and want to make up for their shortcomings, Pini is ashamed of himself because Michal does not want him. He wants to hide from his shame. Said and Khaled think they will find martyrdom and glory, but want to bomb because they see it as a way to fight for Palestine, for thousands of dead and displaced civilians. They see it as a way to fight against an enemy with better training, more money, better weapons, and who is seen by many as the conflict's hero. But Pini manipulates Itamar so that blame for the bombing will be placed on Menachem, so that Menachem will be shamed. Pini tells only Michal of his plan (the bombing, not the additionally shameful manipulation of Itamar) because he thinks she will be proud of him for displaying his "lion-like qualities," for "defending his religion." Then he kills Itamar (presumably so that Pini's secret manipulation dies with Itamar). Pini is using the guise of a faithful suicide bombing to cover his desire to commit the sin of suicide. Through this act, he wishes to gain the admiration of the woman who did not love him, place blame for murder on Menachem, the man Michal loved, and commit suicide to hide from his personal shame (or inability to deal with rejection of the beloved rabbi's daughter and possibly, as a result, the rabbi). To this end, he manipulates, connives, and murders.

While I recognize that suicide bombing (any bombing, really) is neither good nor glorious, the mindset of the characters in Paradise Now present it as a path to atonement, martyrdom, and service to the country. In Time of Favor, Pini uses these ideals to try to cover up his shortcomings so he can kill himself and try to pretend he did so for a cause.

While I don't doubt that Pini is devout and dedicated to the Jewish faith, I don't think a full argument can be made that makes religion his primary motive in his action. He wants revenge, pity, and admiration - glory. That he got the idea from Rabbi Meltzer's sermon is secondary here (when discussing Pini - the rabbi's a whole other topic). I don't see how Pini is motivated to the act by religion or devotion, only that he uses that idea to manipulate Itamar and try to manipulate Michal.

Each of these movies is great on its own, each is rich in commentary and symbolism, each can be written about at length. But together, they could provide secondary students a strong starting point for conversations or essays, for critical thinking about difficult and touchy topics.

Paradise Now

Paradise Now was excellent. It was co-written and directed by Hany Abu-Assad (right in above picture) and co-written and produced by Bero Beyer (left). Abu-Assad was born in Nazareth, Israel, in 1961 and moved to the Netherlands (which is, I presume where he met Beyer) in 1980. Although he was born in Israel, all the information I found on him refers to him as a Palestinian. In this interview he seems particularly sympathetic to Palestine. Perhaps he is a Palestinian born in Israel. I found no biographical information on Beyer except that he is Dutch and has produced a couple movies.

I'm sure we were all struck by the humanization of Said and Khaled (the protagonists). It is truly rare (at least in the United States) to be given the opportunity to view a suicide bomber as a real person.

Paradise Now does not exist to justify suicide bombings, but rather to illustrate how it is that one chooses to become a suicide bomber (or just a bomber, or a terrorist in general). I've always found suicide bombings particularly interesting because they're not just about killing the other person. If that were the case there'd just be bombs, no suicide. But martyrdom is an important part of the action. Showing that you believe so much in something that you'll give your life for it and for the good of your people.

We begin to see why Said and Khaled feel that they will be martyrs while they are filming their goodbye videos. While we can recognize suicide bombing as something that's not O.K., these men make their cases seem almost rational. We can at least sympathize with them, with their need to try to make right what they feel is so wrong.

Khaled says that Palestine has tried other means of getting through to Israel, political and peaceful means. He says that he can no longer accept being treated as if Palestinians are inferior, can no longer accept ethnic cleansing, occupation, unfairness, lack of compromise. This unimaginable act is his way of fighting for his country. Khaled asks Jamal to protect his family from retribution by the Israelis.

In his video, Said says, "Our bodies are all we have left to fight with." A statement that is at once dreadful, determined, and ineffably sad.

Later, Suha, who is also exceptionally rational, tries to talk Khaled out of his "mission." She points out that these actions give the Israelis all the justification they need not to stop what they are doing. But what really gets to Khaled, I think, is when she says, "If you kill, there's no difference between victim and occupier." He is forced to see himself as the enemy.

Said, trying to reaffirm his commitment, is again the model of downtrodden determination and elicitor of sympathy. "And the world watches," he says, "cowardly, unjustly. . . . [The Israelis have] convinced the world and themselves that they are the victims. . . . How," he asks, "can the occupier be the victim?" Suha has answered this riddle.

Powerful in its raw emotion and near constant intensity, the film presents the perfect persuasion. Even if you don't agree with the act, you feel for the person.

This film could be beneficial in classrooms for a number of reasons. Most obviously, it touches deeply on current events. But it can lead teachers and students to discussions about right and wrong in any number of areas. (How do we determine what is just? Was dropping the atom bomb just? Was it just for George to kill Lennie? Is the U.S.'s current involvement with Iraq and Afghanistan just? Are there degrees of justness?) Also, the way in which each main character presents his (and her) case can be used to facilitate discussions of writing persuasively. Each side of the "to bomb or not to bomb" argument is presented clearly and rationally. While the film's authors acknowledge their bias against Israel, they never indicate that they think Israelis should be killed, especially innocent citizens. The arguments both for and against the suicide bombings are well thought out and logical. Students will see that a writer needn't agree with a point of view to present it respectfully.

And for all the film's talk of violence, we never - not even once, not even when Said carries out his bombing - see any violence.