mojarrada
20/11/2006, 20:12
Films are one of the major genres of media that provide information for different categories of audience all over the world. Spreading ideas and representations of the other through movies seems to be an excellent industry because it has a huge impact on the viewer. In fact, we're living in a time where the winner is the strongest one who can use his mind and who has a strong base of ideas and plans to fight against the other. This is exactly what happens in the filed of producing movies in Hollywood, which is making representations of Muslims and Arabs.
After I watched Steven Spielberg's Munich Movie which talks about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, my memory recalls an Arabic statement that says, “Be careful! Honey might contain poison.” In this movie, the director, Steven Spielberg, is trying to avoid being biased although he is Jew. However, that doesn't mean the movie is not taking side. The term 'trying to avoid' differs from 'avoiding'. The director accompanies with Tony Kushner in writing the scenario of this movie who is against Zionism which then lessen the chances of being biased regarding the subject of Munich which was nominated to win Oscar Prize for the previous year 2005, but it lost the chance of winning because it gives space for Palestinians to talk about their rights and land which makes most of Israeli critics to refuse it.
Actually, what surprised me the most in this movie is the scene that compiles both the Palestinian guy (Ali) and the Mossad agent (Avnar) who is the main character in the movie, Eric Bana. I found it surprising because as an Arabic-Muslim person, who believes that there is a legitimate right for Palestinians to have their own land and extract the Jews routs from Palestine, it is kind of strange to have one of the movies that is produced in Hollywood and directed by a Jewish director is trying to illuminate some historical and real facts that state the right of Palestinians to get their home back. The Palestinian guy (Ali) says in a conversation with the Mossad agent (Avnar) the following: “Eventually, the Arab states will arise against Israel. They don't like Palestinians, but they hate the Jews more. It won't be like 1976. The rest of the world will see by then what Israelis is doing for us.” Also he states as a response to Avnar when he says that having his land back is just a dream, “We have a lot of children. We'll wait forever. It will take hundred of years, but we will win. How long did it take Jews to have their country?” When Ali laugh it off, Avnar whiffs his cigarette fume in a sarcastic manner; this snapshot implies the statement that Avnar states when Ali wonders why he is staring at him and smiling, “This is a dream. You can't take a country that you've never had”.
In addition, there is another scene that shows one of the eleven Palestinians who is a diplomatic person in France and has been targeted to be assassinated by the Israeli Mossad talking to one of the Israeli assassins who claims that he is a reporter. In this scene, Steven Spielberg continues his indirect hints about his representation of the other who is in this movie Palestinians and Arabs. He presents a Palestinian woman, the wife of the diplomatic, as a very westernized person, and the Eastern man/husband as a man who has no personality and can't have a say during his conversation with the reporter. He was bothered from his wife and wonders if the interview is with her or him. This representation might have a correct perspective. I can't say that it doesn't happen in the Arab-Muslim communities, but the question that knocks my door now is why the director doesn't choose to show the Palestinian woman in another picture, and why he chooses to show her in such way.
In these two scenes, the director tries to avoid being biased. However, he gives a tiny space for Palestinians to talk about their right in comparison with the rest of the movie and the variety of scenes that could tell that Munich in its representation of both Israelis and Arabs is taking side which supports the most the Israeli side. For example, the scene of Golda Meir, the Prime Minister of Israel when Palestinians massacred Israeli athletes during the Olympics in 1972, gathering with the Mossad members in a meeting after the massacre and saying that the Jews have home, and the repetition of strands like nations, our people, and home is irritating; besides other phrases she states like wondering about the origin of Palestinians and from where they came from. She says, “I don't know who these maniacs are and where they come from. Palestinians, they are not recognizable. You tell me what law protects people like these”. The director shows in this scene the exact real face of Israel, and he unmasks the dirty things that Mossad did. That is good for Arabs and Muslims to know, but in some way it is giving legitimacy for Israel to have a land and talk about its right in raping a Muslim country without any right. Golda Meir states, “Forget peace for now. We have to show them we are strong. We have laws.” I am wondering, as a viewer, which laws she is talking about for God's sake? The laws that Jews have a land and has a right to live in a place that is not for them. The laws that follow what Machiavelli believes in and states in his book The Prince, “The aims justify the means” even if it will cost killing innocent people.
Munich is a complex movie that is trying to deliver a message that says violence brings violence and there is no winner in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict or war in general; the best solution is to live side by side. Steven Spielberg implies that having conversation with both sides is better, not violence. This leads us to the very beginning of the movie which shows the Palestinians kill the Israeli athletes. Audience of this film who has a lack of understanding the reason of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict will agree with the idea that Israelis are innocents and victims. If the director wants to be balanced, he has to have a scene before the killings and show what Israelis did for Palestinians in 1948 and the years followed it. If resistance is considered as terrorism in non Arabic-Muslim countries, I, as a member of an Arabic-Muslim nation, will be proud of what Palestinians are doing, had done and will do in order to resist against Jews.
After I watched Steven Spielberg's Munich Movie which talks about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, my memory recalls an Arabic statement that says, “Be careful! Honey might contain poison.” In this movie, the director, Steven Spielberg, is trying to avoid being biased although he is Jew. However, that doesn't mean the movie is not taking side. The term 'trying to avoid' differs from 'avoiding'. The director accompanies with Tony Kushner in writing the scenario of this movie who is against Zionism which then lessen the chances of being biased regarding the subject of Munich which was nominated to win Oscar Prize for the previous year 2005, but it lost the chance of winning because it gives space for Palestinians to talk about their rights and land which makes most of Israeli critics to refuse it.
Actually, what surprised me the most in this movie is the scene that compiles both the Palestinian guy (Ali) and the Mossad agent (Avnar) who is the main character in the movie, Eric Bana. I found it surprising because as an Arabic-Muslim person, who believes that there is a legitimate right for Palestinians to have their own land and extract the Jews routs from Palestine, it is kind of strange to have one of the movies that is produced in Hollywood and directed by a Jewish director is trying to illuminate some historical and real facts that state the right of Palestinians to get their home back. The Palestinian guy (Ali) says in a conversation with the Mossad agent (Avnar) the following: “Eventually, the Arab states will arise against Israel. They don't like Palestinians, but they hate the Jews more. It won't be like 1976. The rest of the world will see by then what Israelis is doing for us.” Also he states as a response to Avnar when he says that having his land back is just a dream, “We have a lot of children. We'll wait forever. It will take hundred of years, but we will win. How long did it take Jews to have their country?” When Ali laugh it off, Avnar whiffs his cigarette fume in a sarcastic manner; this snapshot implies the statement that Avnar states when Ali wonders why he is staring at him and smiling, “This is a dream. You can't take a country that you've never had”.
In addition, there is another scene that shows one of the eleven Palestinians who is a diplomatic person in France and has been targeted to be assassinated by the Israeli Mossad talking to one of the Israeli assassins who claims that he is a reporter. In this scene, Steven Spielberg continues his indirect hints about his representation of the other who is in this movie Palestinians and Arabs. He presents a Palestinian woman, the wife of the diplomatic, as a very westernized person, and the Eastern man/husband as a man who has no personality and can't have a say during his conversation with the reporter. He was bothered from his wife and wonders if the interview is with her or him. This representation might have a correct perspective. I can't say that it doesn't happen in the Arab-Muslim communities, but the question that knocks my door now is why the director doesn't choose to show the Palestinian woman in another picture, and why he chooses to show her in such way.
In these two scenes, the director tries to avoid being biased. However, he gives a tiny space for Palestinians to talk about their right in comparison with the rest of the movie and the variety of scenes that could tell that Munich in its representation of both Israelis and Arabs is taking side which supports the most the Israeli side. For example, the scene of Golda Meir, the Prime Minister of Israel when Palestinians massacred Israeli athletes during the Olympics in 1972, gathering with the Mossad members in a meeting after the massacre and saying that the Jews have home, and the repetition of strands like nations, our people, and home is irritating; besides other phrases she states like wondering about the origin of Palestinians and from where they came from. She says, “I don't know who these maniacs are and where they come from. Palestinians, they are not recognizable. You tell me what law protects people like these”. The director shows in this scene the exact real face of Israel, and he unmasks the dirty things that Mossad did. That is good for Arabs and Muslims to know, but in some way it is giving legitimacy for Israel to have a land and talk about its right in raping a Muslim country without any right. Golda Meir states, “Forget peace for now. We have to show them we are strong. We have laws.” I am wondering, as a viewer, which laws she is talking about for God's sake? The laws that Jews have a land and has a right to live in a place that is not for them. The laws that follow what Machiavelli believes in and states in his book The Prince, “The aims justify the means” even if it will cost killing innocent people.
Munich is a complex movie that is trying to deliver a message that says violence brings violence and there is no winner in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict or war in general; the best solution is to live side by side. Steven Spielberg implies that having conversation with both sides is better, not violence. This leads us to the very beginning of the movie which shows the Palestinians kill the Israeli athletes. Audience of this film who has a lack of understanding the reason of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict will agree with the idea that Israelis are innocents and victims. If the director wants to be balanced, he has to have a scene before the killings and show what Israelis did for Palestinians in 1948 and the years followed it. If resistance is considered as terrorism in non Arabic-Muslim countries, I, as a member of an Arabic-Muslim nation, will be proud of what Palestinians are doing, had done and will do in order to resist against Jews.