Paradise Now

PARADISE NOW, like THE WAR WITHIN, educates an American audience on the tragedy of the complex battle of "Arab vs. Jew" and does so in a film that brings this struggle home to the West Bank and gives us a picture of two friends selected to carry out revenge for the death of fellow Palestinians. Well constructed, realistic, informative and yes, even humanistic in presenting us with characters that we would immediately disregard with hatred and contempt.

The journey taken by the friends is painful, personal and disturbing, in that the killing of Jews will only extend the bombings and killings of more Palestinians within the West Bank. PARADISE NOW shows us that the historical roots of hatred between Arab and Jew is one that will never go away, and the film points out this factor visually in building to the final scene on the bus in Tel Aviv. When the camera narrows down to the eyes of the bomber, surrounded by healthy, happy Israeli soldiers, the intense moment of self destruction is inevitable.

The shots of Tel Aviv, the West Bank, the excellent cast, direction and writing and development of the characters makes PARADISE NOW a very important film to see in 2005.

As interesting as it was, as undeniably striving for objectiveness, original in its approach and well-made both visually and in terms of production values, I found Paradise Now a little weak narratively, especially in the central part. But when a filmmaker decides to tackle a theme of this calibre, a subject as thorny and well... explosive, not to mention one involving such daunting amounts of moral responsibility towards humankind, you cannot help but feel in awe of their courage a priori.

The attempt to shed light on the unfathomable – how a healthy, "average" young person could ever wish to become a suicide bomber – is quite successfully carried out, and is probably one of the movie's strength. It was the main reason I watched it and possibly Paradise Now's main purpose successfully nailed – and that really is no mean feat. On the other hand, I was confused by the shifts in focus between personal drama (Said's resentment against his father and desire to be different from him) and socio-religious-historical content at the beginning of the movie's second half. I wasn't sure what the director was trying to do... It's impossible to deny, though, that the tension never lets up during the whole time that Khaled and Said have the explosives strapped to their abdomens, much to the filmmakers' credit.

Even more shocking, though, are the accusations levelled against the movie by ordinary viewers – that it's allegedly an apology of suicide bombers, and pro-kamikaze propaganda. Not all these accusations come from Israeli viewers - though most are (while at the same time, many Jewish reviewers loved the movie). One Israeli mother I read from who lost her son in an exploding bus in Tel Aviv claims that humanising the suicide bombers is the equivalent of a direct insult to the memory of her murdered child. Though you cannot argue with the grief of a mother who loses her child in such a horrendous way, you cannot help asking yourself what such people expect: that suicide bombers be portrayed as two-dimensional monsters complete with horns, forked tongues and slitty snake pupils in their eyes? This doesn't bode well for the future of the peace process in the Middle East. Meanwhile, Hany Abu-Assad has tried to give his own personal, brave, heartfelt contribution, and this viewer looks forward to more cinematic efforts from this talent.

"Paradise Now" is a rare film in which one sees another angle to the Middle East conflict first hand. In fact, the movie is non violent while making its point, something, that in another director's hands, would have taken a different path.

Director Hani Abu Assad takes us behind the scenes as two young men are being asked to perform the most daring act in order to make a statement to the enemy, give up their own lives! Mr. Assad takes us along as this pair prepares for what could be their last day on earth. In fact, one of the things that have always puzzled us is the idea that the young people giving their own lives, go to their deaths so quietly, and without any questions posed to the leaders that are asking for their sacrifice.

We watch as the two good friends, Said and Khaled spend the last night with their families, not even giving a hint of what they are about to do. Later, in a scene that reminded us of "The Last Supper", Said and Khaled sit with the leader of their group to partake their last meal. Then, we watch as they both are transformed to resemble their own enemy.

The two young leads, Kais Nashef and Ali Suliman are perfect in their roles. Lubna Azabal, is seen as a young Moroccan woman who has met the pair at the garage where they worked and seems to act as their conscience because she makes them reflect on the deed they are going to perform.

"Paradise Now" points to a lot of the causes for the problems in the region where the contrast between the two sides is like day and night. Nablas, the town where Said and Khaled live could well be in another planet, while Tel Aviv, with its skyscrapers, modernity and order, is perhaps, the paradise they are searching for.

The film is worth a look since it is a different account about the tragedy in that part of the world.

After watching "Paradise Now" and reading the reviews on this site, I had to ask myself whether those who hated this film saw the same movie I did. It is entirely possible to watch this film and not side with the two protagonists. Why? Oh, I don't know, it's called having a rational, open mind.

I never got the impression that the filmmakers were celebrating suicide bombers or condoning the actions of their two protagonists. What director Hany Abu-Assad attempts to do - and does it rather successfully - is show us the thought process that happens when people decide to do the unspeakable. We might not agree with the decision - at least, I certainly hope we don't - and we should be repulsed by what's happening. But the unmistakable truth is that these people exist and, whether we like to admit it or not, they firmly believe in what they're doing.

Being objective, or trying to be, and humanizing people like Said and Khaled in the film isn't necessarily bad. I realize it's awfully easy for our leaders to simply brand them as monsters and "evildoers" and see the world in purely as good and evil, a world without complexities, subtleties and contradictions. It makes them feel good to spoon feed us trite sound bites and most of us seem to be quite willing to accept their mindless platitudes, phrases and talking points without debate or even an iota of skepticism.

But when you humanize these characters, it makes them more terrifying. We realize they're not rabid monsters we can't know and understand. It makes what they do all that more alarming. When Bruno Ganz humanized Hitler in "Downfall" (2004), he didn't make Hitler any less evil; he just made us realize that a human being could be that horrible and, therefore, his actions were all the more despicable and frightening.

The American public - as much as it might not want to admit it - needs to be educated and learn about what makes people like Said, Khaled and their comrades tick. It's too myopic (and ultimately unproductive) for us to simply toss them aside as evil. Our ignorance of foreign cultures and religions, especially Arab and Islam, is staggering. The media must share some of the blame. TV networks are more concerned about young, white women missing than foreign affairs. World news in this country essentially is limited to the goings-on Iraq. That, too, barely penetrates the surface. Not when you have to cut to breaking news of a new "development" in Aruba or the latest on Brad and Angelina. Afghanistan barely gets mentioned anymore, even though the Taliban seems to be gaining strength in several parts again. (Then again, even the Bush administration seems to have forgotten about that place.) And then networks have the audacity to put on talking-heads to pontificate on shows headlined, "Why they hate us."

"Paradise Now" never asks us to support what the characters are doing. In fact, it provides a counterbalance to the characters by giving us a Palestinian woman who sees the futility in this enterprise. The film also never glorifies what these people are doing. It show us, and there's no implied endorsement of their actions. The acting is uniformly good and, above all, convincing. We may not agree with the subject matter and we should find the characters' actions loathsome. But that doesn't mean we simply brand the film as irresponsible.

This is the world we live in, whether we like it or not. And we owe it to ourselves to learn and comprehend how the other side thinks. What they believe and why they do. Doesn't mean we have to like it. But we sure need to understand it.

I thought this was a very powerful and well-made film. The acting was excellent, as are the script, direction, and cinematography. Perhaps the biggest challenge with a film on such a controversial topic is what position it takes, but as a moderate American Jew, I felt it took as objective a position as possible. It does not push one side or another, but merely tells one story about two men chosen for a suicide bombing mission. I was concerned there might be an attempt to get the viewer to sympathize with the would-be bombers, but did not find that to be the case. Ultimately, the story leads you to sympathize with the families and friends of these men, demonizes those who have led them down this path, and simply humanizes the men themselves. There have been some criticisms of the film for focusing too much on Palestinians and essentially reducing the Israelis in the film to background and setting, but I think this was necessary. This is not a documentary about suicide bombings; it is the story of two of the suicide bombers themselves.