Defending Paradise
Newsweek
The director of the most controversial Oscar nominee examines his film's impact.
By Eric Pape
March 3, 2006 - Hany Abu-Assad's controversial film "Paradise Now" has succeeded beyond his dreams. Given the sensitive subject matter—it tells the tale of two old friends recruited to perform a suicide bombing in Tel Aviv—the 44-year old Israeli-Arab director expected many viewers to reject the film simply because of its subject matter. Some did. But the film, an international hit, recently won the Golden Globe for best foreign film and "Paradise" is the front runner to win the foreign-film Oscar on Sunday, over nominees ''Don't Tell" (Italy), "Joyeux Noël" (France), "Sophie Scholl—The Final Days" (Germany) and "Tsotsi" (South Africa).
The award would only ruffle feathers more. An association of Israelis who have lost children to suicide bombings has even been gathering signatures on a petition asking the Academy Awards to disqualify the film, which was nominated by the Palestinian territories. (The group says 32,000 people have signed). Abu-Assad, who faced great challenges in making the movie—during filming in the West Bank city of Nablus a real-life explosion nearby killed three people and caused some of his crew to quit—sounded humble as he explained that movies can allow viewers "a window into the lives of people they consider horrible." To show them and their world, he explains, is hardly a glorification of their acts. He spoke with NEWSWEEK's Eric Pape by telephone just weeks after moving to Los Angeles, and again via e.mail to respond to the petition calling for his film’s disqualification.
NEWSWEEK: What’s your reaction to the petition against the movie?
Hany Abu-Assad: The death of Asaf [a 16-year-old Israeli killed in a 2003 suicide bus bombing and whose father, Yossi Zur, played in key role in launching the petition] is a tremendous tragedy, especially for all of his loved ones. They are of course in pain, and rightly so. We are human—we all have emotions. I have no problem with the petition, but I think it’s problematic to judge or sign something if you have not seen it. It is a film, and can be interpreted in many different ways. Hopefully, as artists we are allowed to create art from a reality that is often ugly. We all have points of view and the right to express them. I too want the killing to stop, but I believe that in order for it to stop, we have to learn how to have empathy for each other, and to achieve empathy, you must first understand each other.
What most surprised you about the film's reception?
That most people—and not just in the U.S.—judged it as a film. I thought people might be so angry about the concept that they wouldn't go along with it as a movie. Everywhere it is screened, it creates discussion.
What was it like showing the film in Israel?
I was afraid. [Nervous chuckle.] Some people said humanizing suicide bombers is as bad as the act itself. But the conversations were constructive enough that I was happy to have screened it in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. Cinema is a great opportunity to let you live with a character you wouldn't really want to be near. And it gets you thinking more. So most people appreciated that.
Has the meaning of the film changed given the recent election of the radical group Hamas and Ariel Sharon's disappearance from the political scene?
I don't believe that the film will change the situation or that the situation will change the film. But there is greater urgency now: the right wing in Israel is the equivalent of Hamas. One is the occupier, the other is fighting occupation, but they are both focused on raw power. One says: "I am powerful, you must listen to me." The other says, "I have the power to create chaos." Most people in Palestine and in Israel don't feel like they are a part of this game; they are being dragged along—and they are worried. But whatever has happened, I still believe one thing: to create peace, a comprehensive and lasting peace, involves creating a place for both sides, as equals, and to accept the principle that Israelis and Palestinians have an equal right to the land. The second step is to figure out who is responsible for creating peace. Israel, with its control of the money and the land, is responsible for that. They have the land, so they must share the land. This is the main thing, and I think most Israelis accept it. The rest—Sharon in a coma, Hamas in power—is peanuts in the big picture.
What about obstacles to change within Israel?
As long as some people believe they have a chance to create a Jewish state on all of the land, there will be trouble. And as long as they have the power, weapons and money, some people think they just have to wait until the right moment to extend Jewish settlements onto the whole of the land, and extend the ethnic cleansing. As long as those people feel they can succeed, they will keep trying. Ultimately, the Palestinians have no control. When Israelis accept that Palestinians have equal rights to the land, it will change everything.
What will Hamas's election bring?
As a person, I am against any religious movement becoming a political one. But still, as long as the left in Palestine, or anywhere, doesn't respond to people's problems with a better-quality life and more justice, then a part of the right might succeed by offering another answer: religion. "We can't create a better life on earth, so let's create it in the hereafter." When I was born, communists ran Nazareth, but they couldn't create hope for the poor, so people moved toward religion, and the Islamic party became dominant. We, in Palestine, failed to offer realistic hope. The religious ideas being forwarded are unrealistic, too, but no one can prove that because people only find that when they're dead. But I think that every negative thing—and I think this is very negative—can have positive developments. It is good that the Fatah leaders in Palestine have to wake up. They were not creating security for poor people and they became very corrupt. So they have to learn their lessons. Secondly, Hamas was always shouting from behind that they would fight this war better. OK, now that you have the leadership, fight better! They will learn that it isn't easy. So it will be a wake-up call for both of them; Fatah has no exclusive right to power, and Hamas will realize that they have few tools to fight with other than politics.
What does Ariel Sharon passing from the political stage mean?
I can't read the thoughts of Israel's current leadership. I don't know how people who play the power game came to the conclusion that they had no choice but to treat the Palestinians as equals. It felt like Sharon was realizing this: that we have to make a deal while they are weak. On the streets of Palestine, most people think that Sharon is a war criminal, but most people are not spiteful. They feel mercy for a sick man. Still, that doesn't mean he becomes a hero. But even if someone like Sharon can change and make us land partners, it doesn't just depend on him. There are generals who must also agree.
You recently moved to Hollywood. Quite a change?
In the end, Hollywood studios control the [movie] world, so in being nearby, I will learn many things. I never in my life thought that this would happen. When I was young, I had very modest dreams: I wanted a wife, children and to own a car and a house. The funny thing is, I don't have any of those things yet.
And on the Oscars. if you win, what will you say?
Don't ask me that. Please. It is best not to think about it. I force myself not to think about it. We are one of five candidates. Twenty percent is not a big chance.
Your next film?
I have two projects. One is about the American Dream in the Arabic world—and the whole Third World, for that matter. We believe more in the American Dream than you do, so it is the American Dream through the outsider's eyes. And the second film is about the fear of terror. Cars kill more people in a day than terror has in years, but people are so afraid of terror. We accept the danger from cars, not terror, and yet something always causes terror. We ignore why and focus only on the consequences. To prevent it, we must think about what creates the evil.
If you were making "Paradise Now" today, what would you do differently?
I would have less political dialogue. The film is strong enough that such political dialogue, which is always connected to an era, will sound dated 10 years from now. The best dialogue—like "Hamlet"—is timeless. There is no expiration date.
What happens next between Israel and Palestine?
I don't know what happens next, but I know what will happen at the end: both nations will be there on the land. They will be equal, in an economic partnership. Examples elsewhere show that even if one side is powerful and the other unequal, you never force them to accept defeat. After 60 years of fighting, it is clear that the Palestinians are persistent, too. This is surely what will happen. When? I don't know.
© 2006 MSNBC.com
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11644732/site/newsweek/
The director of the most controversial Oscar nominee examines his film's impact.
By Eric Pape
March 3, 2006 - Hany Abu-Assad's controversial film "Paradise Now" has succeeded beyond his dreams. Given the sensitive subject matter—it tells the tale of two old friends recruited to perform a suicide bombing in Tel Aviv—the 44-year old Israeli-Arab director expected many viewers to reject the film simply because of its subject matter. Some did. But the film, an international hit, recently won the Golden Globe for best foreign film and "Paradise" is the front runner to win the foreign-film Oscar on Sunday, over nominees ''Don't Tell" (Italy), "Joyeux Noël" (France), "Sophie Scholl—The Final Days" (Germany) and "Tsotsi" (South Africa).
The award would only ruffle feathers more. An association of Israelis who have lost children to suicide bombings has even been gathering signatures on a petition asking the Academy Awards to disqualify the film, which was nominated by the Palestinian territories. (The group says 32,000 people have signed). Abu-Assad, who faced great challenges in making the movie—during filming in the West Bank city of Nablus a real-life explosion nearby killed three people and caused some of his crew to quit—sounded humble as he explained that movies can allow viewers "a window into the lives of people they consider horrible." To show them and their world, he explains, is hardly a glorification of their acts. He spoke with NEWSWEEK's Eric Pape by telephone just weeks after moving to Los Angeles, and again via e.mail to respond to the petition calling for his film’s disqualification.
NEWSWEEK: What’s your reaction to the petition against the movie?
Hany Abu-Assad: The death of Asaf [a 16-year-old Israeli killed in a 2003 suicide bus bombing and whose father, Yossi Zur, played in key role in launching the petition] is a tremendous tragedy, especially for all of his loved ones. They are of course in pain, and rightly so. We are human—we all have emotions. I have no problem with the petition, but I think it’s problematic to judge or sign something if you have not seen it. It is a film, and can be interpreted in many different ways. Hopefully, as artists we are allowed to create art from a reality that is often ugly. We all have points of view and the right to express them. I too want the killing to stop, but I believe that in order for it to stop, we have to learn how to have empathy for each other, and to achieve empathy, you must first understand each other.
What most surprised you about the film's reception?
That most people—and not just in the U.S.—judged it as a film. I thought people might be so angry about the concept that they wouldn't go along with it as a movie. Everywhere it is screened, it creates discussion.
What was it like showing the film in Israel?
I was afraid. [Nervous chuckle.] Some people said humanizing suicide bombers is as bad as the act itself. But the conversations were constructive enough that I was happy to have screened it in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. Cinema is a great opportunity to let you live with a character you wouldn't really want to be near. And it gets you thinking more. So most people appreciated that.
Has the meaning of the film changed given the recent election of the radical group Hamas and Ariel Sharon's disappearance from the political scene?
I don't believe that the film will change the situation or that the situation will change the film. But there is greater urgency now: the right wing in Israel is the equivalent of Hamas. One is the occupier, the other is fighting occupation, but they are both focused on raw power. One says: "I am powerful, you must listen to me." The other says, "I have the power to create chaos." Most people in Palestine and in Israel don't feel like they are a part of this game; they are being dragged along—and they are worried. But whatever has happened, I still believe one thing: to create peace, a comprehensive and lasting peace, involves creating a place for both sides, as equals, and to accept the principle that Israelis and Palestinians have an equal right to the land. The second step is to figure out who is responsible for creating peace. Israel, with its control of the money and the land, is responsible for that. They have the land, so they must share the land. This is the main thing, and I think most Israelis accept it. The rest—Sharon in a coma, Hamas in power—is peanuts in the big picture.
What about obstacles to change within Israel?
As long as some people believe they have a chance to create a Jewish state on all of the land, there will be trouble. And as long as they have the power, weapons and money, some people think they just have to wait until the right moment to extend Jewish settlements onto the whole of the land, and extend the ethnic cleansing. As long as those people feel they can succeed, they will keep trying. Ultimately, the Palestinians have no control. When Israelis accept that Palestinians have equal rights to the land, it will change everything.
What will Hamas's election bring?
As a person, I am against any religious movement becoming a political one. But still, as long as the left in Palestine, or anywhere, doesn't respond to people's problems with a better-quality life and more justice, then a part of the right might succeed by offering another answer: religion. "We can't create a better life on earth, so let's create it in the hereafter." When I was born, communists ran Nazareth, but they couldn't create hope for the poor, so people moved toward religion, and the Islamic party became dominant. We, in Palestine, failed to offer realistic hope. The religious ideas being forwarded are unrealistic, too, but no one can prove that because people only find that when they're dead. But I think that every negative thing—and I think this is very negative—can have positive developments. It is good that the Fatah leaders in Palestine have to wake up. They were not creating security for poor people and they became very corrupt. So they have to learn their lessons. Secondly, Hamas was always shouting from behind that they would fight this war better. OK, now that you have the leadership, fight better! They will learn that it isn't easy. So it will be a wake-up call for both of them; Fatah has no exclusive right to power, and Hamas will realize that they have few tools to fight with other than politics.
What does Ariel Sharon passing from the political stage mean?
I can't read the thoughts of Israel's current leadership. I don't know how people who play the power game came to the conclusion that they had no choice but to treat the Palestinians as equals. It felt like Sharon was realizing this: that we have to make a deal while they are weak. On the streets of Palestine, most people think that Sharon is a war criminal, but most people are not spiteful. They feel mercy for a sick man. Still, that doesn't mean he becomes a hero. But even if someone like Sharon can change and make us land partners, it doesn't just depend on him. There are generals who must also agree.
You recently moved to Hollywood. Quite a change?
In the end, Hollywood studios control the [movie] world, so in being nearby, I will learn many things. I never in my life thought that this would happen. When I was young, I had very modest dreams: I wanted a wife, children and to own a car and a house. The funny thing is, I don't have any of those things yet.
And on the Oscars. if you win, what will you say?
Don't ask me that. Please. It is best not to think about it. I force myself not to think about it. We are one of five candidates. Twenty percent is not a big chance.
Your next film?
I have two projects. One is about the American Dream in the Arabic world—and the whole Third World, for that matter. We believe more in the American Dream than you do, so it is the American Dream through the outsider's eyes. And the second film is about the fear of terror. Cars kill more people in a day than terror has in years, but people are so afraid of terror. We accept the danger from cars, not terror, and yet something always causes terror. We ignore why and focus only on the consequences. To prevent it, we must think about what creates the evil.
If you were making "Paradise Now" today, what would you do differently?
I would have less political dialogue. The film is strong enough that such political dialogue, which is always connected to an era, will sound dated 10 years from now. The best dialogue—like "Hamlet"—is timeless. There is no expiration date.
What happens next between Israel and Palestine?
I don't know what happens next, but I know what will happen at the end: both nations will be there on the land. They will be equal, in an economic partnership. Examples elsewhere show that even if one side is powerful and the other unequal, you never force them to accept defeat. After 60 years of fighting, it is clear that the Palestinians are persistent, too. This is surely what will happen. When? I don't know.
© 2006 MSNBC.com
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11644732/site/newsweek/
posted by Unknown | 9:01 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home