Paradise Reconsidered
Paradise Now: A Film by Hany Abu-Assad
by Deena Greenberg
PDF Version | Print Version
It is rare that a movie simultaneously evokes in its viewer heartfelt sympathy and unspeakable horror. However, when watching two close friends struggle and deliberate over the execution of a suicide operation, even the most unsympathetic viewer cannot help but feel such a confluence of emotions.
Co-written by director Hany Abu Assad, an Israeli-born Palestinian, and Dutch producer Bero Beyer, Paradise Now traces the forty-eight hours surrounding the assignment and execution of a suicide mission commissioned by an unnamed terrorist cell in Nablus on the West Bank and carried out in Tel Aviv by the film’s leading characters, friends, Said (Kais Nashef) and Khaled (Ali Suliman). Soon after the film begins, the friends—who work together in an auto-body shop–—receive their assignment. Both accept the assignment without hesitation, but as we find out later, their inner motivations for the task are more involved. Khaled views suicide bombs—and the subsequent deaths—as the only equalizer to Israeli oppression. Said is living with the lifelong shame and humiliation of being the son of a collaborator with the Israelis.
As Said and Khaled embark on their mission, something goes wrong. The friends are separated, and Said’s search for Khaled transforms the movie into a kind of action film—a tactic that elicits disparate feelings. On the one hand, the heavy action bespeaks a homegrown cinematic genre with which Western viewers easily identify. On the other hand, the action film sequence seems nebulously directed and incongruous with the otherwise heavy subject matter. Still, overall, the “action film” aspect set amid the dismal background of helpless Palestinian life is one clever way in which the film tries to elicit sympathy—the viewer is told that the terrorists are similar enough to identify with, but also “other” enough to feel pity for.
A similar tactic of making the subject both distanced and a part of the viewing self is used in portraying the lifestyles of the Palestinians. From the first scene, the film portrays the plight of the Palestinians under the hands of the Israeli oppressor. The characters live in abject poverty. All of the houses are in deteriorating condition; every mirror in the film is broken. The protagonists can barely afford to pay the poor boy who brings them tea. Sirens, explosions, and checkpoints seem to be part of daily life in the territories. And in this way, it is clear that Abu-Assad is not concerned with presenting a politically evenhanded film. He depicts Israel as the oppressor, without delving into the complexities or context of the Arab-Israeli conflict. As in his award-winning 2002 film Rana’s Wedding, Abu-Assad uses the occupation as a backdrop to his characters’ personal stories. Statements such as “the occupation defines the resistance,” “our bodies are all we have left,” and “in this life, we’re dead anyway,” are sprinkled throughout the film. And the idea that suicide bombing is the only unexhausted option is repeated—particularly by terrorist leader Jamal (Amer Hiehel).
Such a stance seems to be a direct reflection of Abu-Assad’s personal view. Abu-Assad does not condemn suicide bombs but calls them “a consequence of oppression which first has to stop.”1 He has said that although he is against killing, suicide bombs are a “very human reaction to an extreme situation.” To that end, the film is not about the conflict at all, but the Palestinian perception of it. Indeed, as noted in the film, the mission was “two years in the making.” This is particularly interesting to note because Abu-Assad decided to produce the film in 2000, before the beginning of the second intifada.2
But the film is not altogether uncritical. Although, in his representation, the Israelis bear sole responsibility for the Palestinian condition, Abu-Assad depicts the terrorist leaders in ambiguous terms. Indeed, the abject poverty and dismal living conditions characteristic of the entire city are contrasted with well-funded terrorist leaders. They use digital cameras, cell phones, and high-tech devices, familiar apparatus of an affluent Western world, which suggests that whatever money the Palestinians have is being channeled to terrorist organizations. The leaders are manipulative and controlling, using Khalid and Said as human ammunition and not thinking of them as individuals. In one telling scene, Said asks, “what happens next?,” referring to the time after he will detonate the bomb.
“You will be met by two angels,” Jamal responds in an offhand and uncaring manner.
The voice of nonviolence comes from Suha (Labna Azabal), the daughter of a martyred terrorist who has spent a great deal of time in the West. However, implicit in her outlook, too, is that the Israelis are the aggressors and oppressors. Her enlightened view only responds to the issue, as opposed to re-examining it from a broadened framework, another instance of the film’s heavy-handedness.
Though what is ultimately gained from the film is at best an insight into Palestinian life with very little context, the film is worth seeing. It provides some suspense—though the action element of the film seems largely irrelevant—and is quite psychologically and emotionally provocative. To that end, Abu-Assad accomplishes a very difficult task.
Still, there are dangers in Abu-Assad’s heavy-handed film, as he unambiguously humanizes—and even justifies—suicide bombing to the Western world, without placing the events in a larger context. Abu-Assad deliberately does not show the bloody and horrific consequences of attacks, saying, “we already know
Deena Greenberg is a freshman in the College of Arts and Sciences. She works as a beat reporter for The Daily Pennsylvanian.
Notes
1.Interview with Hany Abu-Assad. http://www.quantara.de/webcom/show_article.php/_c-310/_nr-163/i.html. 2005
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid