The Hamburg Cell

THE HAMBURG CELL has been praised for managing to be "a strictly non-partisan film". This is a difficult thing to achieve, considering the subject matter, and I don't think the makers of this story manage to pull it off. It's interesting to note that only fleeting glimpses of the damaged twin towers and a crashing plane are shown: there are no shots of the World Trade Center workers falling to their deaths, or re-enactments how how the hijackers slit the throats of airstewardesses. This is supposed to be a non-partisan film, remember? But wait, close-up footage of murdered Bosnian Muslims IS shown earlier in the film. We see a murdered Muslim woman, shot in the back, in close-up. I detect some bias here...

I like the fact that this film is non-Hollywood in it's delivery. It's unglamorous, but still quite sophisticated in capturing the monochromatic lives of the terrorists-to-be. It presents a concise timeline of events in a pointed and deliberate manner. It doesn't pretend to be absolute or correct, and it knows it's an estimation of how things might have went down.

Inevitably, Hollywood will roll out its own 9/11 films and they will be glossy and full of big budget bloat, but this humble effort will remain as testament to the idea that a simple film can be as compelling and inviting to interpretation without the need for dramatic flair and elaborate crane rigs.

As soon as The Hamburg Cell, a British television production was screened at the Dubai International Film Festival 2004 ( DIFF), many voices echoed in the spacious hall of Madinat Theatre to ask the same question : ' What is the intention of producing such a film? It still remains a big question why the movie had to be shown in an Arab country-based international film festival even when its screening was expected to trigger trouble rather than promote understanding. It was fortunate that the educated cultured Arab expatriates who viewed the film were not stirred beyond certain limits. Egyptian born actor Kamel, interestingly declining throughout the event to reveal his family name, told news agencies that he feared that the audience's reaction could have erupted into violence. " I thought somebody could throw something," said Kamel. " When I was coming up the stairs I thought this could be the moment." He also expressed concern that one day he would have to confront the hijackers' families. Even though the movie was screened elsewhere, it was in the Dubai that kamel came to view it for the first time.

But back to the question of intentions, it was hard to say that the production was basically directed against the culprits or their countries as much as it was against their crimes. But the film in its totality came lacking in several respects with regard to in-depth analysis and cultural facts that made it appear more like a suspense movie rather than a dramatic treatment. But after all the 9.11 attacks were definitely possessed of a high suspense element and could inspire a perfect disaster genre. However, Finola Dwyer, the film producer who was also present, played down the suspense aspect, stressing the political and the social dimensions of the issue. Considering the film from that latter perspective, it is worth underlining the factor of timing: it is as yet too early to produce a movie about that mammoth terrorist happening. Not all facts relating to the disaster are available and we expect much more to be unraveled in the future. Dwyer refused to recognize the question of timing and went on to add that for the film to avoid appearing tilted towards the West, a team of Arab actors were selected to cast in the film. But how would that matter when the actor is not the one who constructs the screenplay! Claims came that the movie was accurately researched with some of the facts provided by the CIA. But the viewing of Hamburg Cell still didn't add much to what came in the media reports throughout the last three years.

In Hamburg- the coastal German city- where the terrorists were said to have started planning for the deadly operations which claimed 3,000 lives, we encounter bearded fundamentalists who brain-wash young students with secular tendencies. In one example, that of Atta, there is a fleeting scene in which we understand that pressures by his father to get a PhD might have driven him towards such activities. But at no point are we enlightened about why those students succumb to the fundamentalists' wishes while their Saudi accomplices were pushed to the sidelines!

On the cultural platform we are told that the attackers, besides the political motives, were disgusted by the Western materialistic lifestyle in which an individual's goal is no other than property like a villa, a car and other perks that accompany an executive position. The political motive was hardly there, only a short fight and a dispute between Jarrah and a Palestinian mate remain one among a few other details highlighted to accentuate the political aspect of the terrorists' motive. No images of their original background in their home countries was ever there. No images of Israeli and American aggressions on Iraq and Palestine were directly cited, although these are still the only excuse left for people in the Islamic world to express sympathy for the cause of the terrorists.

It is important to note that the Arab and Islamic countries have undergone similar terrorist attacks by extremists in their recent history. What makes 9.11 different is the magnitude of the aggressions and their target being the US, the sole superpower. The production and related articles, however, are not primarily meant to turn the discussion into a political controversy. It is more about the drama and whether it fits into the subject matter. Karim Saleh said that every one has reacted to the 9.11 attacks, so why not the cinema. Right, but more daring would have been a documentary in which the producers could have focused on the attackers as well as the victims' families, the ground that breeds fundamentalism, the ambiguity that still surrounds the operations. It is understandable that this would have been a cumbersome task with much being kept as top secrets. But again if this is the case how could the Hamburg Cell be realistic if a lot of information is still in the realm of secrecy!

At this stage we need a down-to-earth version of the disaster. In drama a lot can be added or deleted as in Titanic and other disaster films. At least in a matter as sensitive as the 9.11 attacks, still one of the main players on the political scene, a sensational like Hamburg Cell should figure at the bottom of the list. More than a suspense, in these troubled waters marking the world's political scene, we need works that provide more understanding than ones which increase tension. And at a film festival meant to bridge cultures the Hamburg Cell should have been excluded, just for the sake of peaceful moments enjoyed amid the conflicts that endanger world peace, stability and a prosperous future for humanity.-----( ENDS)

Dramatisation by renowned filmmaker Antonia Bird of the characters and events involved in the 9/11 attacks. The approach is very laid back, is statedly on the basis of three years research and 'known facts and events.' so is something of a chronicle. It avoids demising the hijackers (so such a film could probably never have been made in America) and Bird points out that not only were they real people, intelligent people, who devoutly believed what they were doing was the right thing, but that it is important for us to understand that and the how and the why. We see the main character as a highly intelligent man, seeking to become a better person by becoming a better Muslim, and thence drawn into the training group. Other factors like the American influence in Palestine (central in most Middle-East Muslims' minds) are mentioned briefly, but the story develops in a natural way - a young man joining those prepared to fight for Islam and 'do something worthwhile'. He switches studies to go to flight school and has perfect skills at 'blending' with westerners. The film is unsensational, but without proselytising for either 'side' manages to at least shed some light on the hijackers motives and mentality.

There is no doubt about it, this is a controversial movie, and it took me a while to see it. Missing it at the Edinburgh Film Festival really got to me but I managed to see it just recently.

I understand that it doesn't yet have a US\Canada release and although there have been talks, nothing has yet been signed up, and no wonder. The subject matter is focused on one of the hijackers of the September 11th Twin Towers attack. Yes. Very controversial and highly emotionally charged topic.

The first thing I'd say about the movie is it is portrayed as an unbiased movie, however that isn't quite true but it's clear to see why. The movie solely rests with the hijackers and the lead up to those terrible events of September the 11th but doesn't concentrate on the events of that day, there are a few shots that remind you of the actual attack, but detail isn't entered into and I think that actually is a good thing.

There's a lot of strong feeling about that day, and very rightly so, but in a movie which tries to take no sides, concentrating on the events would clearly fill any sane person with great sadness and a strong anger against the hijackers and the groups to which they belong.

Okay, so let's put that part to the side and try and concentrate on the movie itself. Antonio Bird has carried through Ronan Bennett's story very well, documenting the process of the main character, Ziad Jarrah played by Karim Salah, transforming from a Western Muslim living the life of a typical student, to a Muslim extremist.

Salah portrays the role excellently, carrying with total believability, the slow change. He starts as a typical student, interested in his own life and ignoring his initial upbringings looking at love and life as a Doctor. Slowly, he is indoctored into a group of Muslims, rediscovering his religion, and from there an extremist pulls him across to their cause and the change in the character is small but obvious. He becomes strong, self assured, and angry.

This carries on for much of the movie, but when the realisations of what is happening and what he is committing to become more apparent, his love for his wife and their Western life come into contention.

From the outset this movie shocks, and it does very well in showing what was behind one of the hijackers. What isn't so good is it doesn't quite hit the mark on this very change. I could see what changed him, and I could understand the peer and religious pressure around him (this is very eloquently shown in the movie) but you still find yourself asking why? A vital few steps are missing, and this may purely be down to the lack of historical information, or the complexity of the subject.

Although an even more difficult subject, I felt the religious and Jihad side could be tackled more, but that might have made the film more inaccessible to the mainstream Western audience.

In the end, the movie condemns what these people did with an extremely loud voice, but not from the extreme Western view that can often be heard today, but from the characters words and actions throughout their brief history. Indeed some of the victim support groups from that day have applauded the release of a film to understand the fundamentalist mindset.

This movie is well worth watching, believe me when I say it isn't all from the side of the hijackers, and it does not attempt in the slightest to justify events, it is an attempt at understanding.