Paradise Now III

                  Being not quite sure what to blog about today, I finally decided to do yet another blog about Paradise Now, and the lively discussion we had about suicide bombers in class on Tuesday.  There were many different opinions expressed on the subject.  Some people sympathized with the suicide bombers because of their bad living conditions, while some said they could never sympathize with someone that would kill themselves and others.  Some also said they learned new things about Palestine and could perhaps see a reason for these suicide bombers’ decisions, while others said that the film itself did not provide much about the actual situation in Palestine, but rather was just aiming to give suicide bombers a face, and show us what is going on in their minds.  Another disagreement was over how much of a role that religion plays to Palestinian suicide bombers, and how much of a role personal circumstances play.

                  My personal opinion is that the movie itself was fairly moderate, and not aiming to advocate anything in particular.  I think it was slightly Pro-Palestinian, and though it was somewhat biased toward their plight versus Israel’s, the only Israeli people shown in the film were innocent ones and friendly-looking soldiers.  And the fact that it was fought over as to whether it was Palestinian or Israeli film means that it could not have been too biased.  I do think it was trying to humanize people that we truly cannot understand and who are terrible enemies (meaning suicide bombers in general).  In this I think the film was successful.  Though we cannot imagine committing a crime such as this, we can at least somewhat understand what goes on inside a suicide bomber’s head, and maybe even find ways to stop these people in their decision to commit this awful crime.

                  I still believe that religion plays a big role in a suicide bomber’s decision, at least for most suicide bombers.  There are of course some that probably do not care two bits about religion, but for the Palestinians, their religion at least helps them in their decision, by promising something after death.  Think about it: though the situation for Khaled and Said was not great by any means, it also was not totally hopeless.  They still had their families to love, and at least somewhat of a normal life with a job, though “normal” was very different for them and their jobs were not well-paying.  Do you think that they would have been so willing, at least at first, to make this decision without having heard about the reward for suicide bombers in the after-life?  Do you think they would be so-willing to destroy their own lives without any hope for life after death?  Plus, they did tape their speeches in front of a portion of the Koran, didn’t they?

                  But though religion did help their decision, I do no think it was the only cause.  I think that the people who recruited them picked Khaled and Said for specific personal reasons, such as passion and past circumstances (such as Said’s father).  I also think that the people like this, who prey on young men like Khaled and Said, have their own propaganda system to keep their own “resistance” going, and to help keep the conflict alive, rather than helping it to die down so that peace could possibly be reached.  Maybe if these men instead used their cunningness to organize themselves on a diplomatic mission to Israel instead of a killing mission, they would help resolve the conflict.  Not that this by itself would bring peace, but it certainly would help.  This is the essence of what Suha was saying, I think, and I totally agree with her.

Paradise Now II

                  I thought it would be hard to do another blog post on the film Paradise Now, since I had to do one for another class not too long ago; but considering what a wonderful and jam-packed film it is, I think I will manage to find enough to write about!!!

                  As I had said in my other post, I have a high regard for this film.  Normally, I am a pretty critical viewer, and do not like to be pulled into a film, especially films that have to do with anything political, by emotions rather than by solid facts.  This film was different.  I did not agree with the film Real Bad Arabs, but I do agree with their positive review of Paradise Now as a moderate, compelling film.  I also mentioned before that I thought I would probably be bored and fall asleep during the film, because I started it very late one night; but I instead could not keep my eyes from being glued to the television.  I also cried… wow, very rare for me!!!

                  My favorite part of the film is when Suha is in the car with Khaled, and they are trying to find Said.  Suha is the real hero of the film, especially as she is able to calm Khaled down and show him that is throwing his life away by killing himself (and others along with him).  The film really caused me to sympathize with these two would-be suicide bombers, not that I thought they were right to do this in any way, but that I felt a terrible pity for them as I saw them being talked into ruining their own lives and blowing other people up.  Needless to say, the ending was heartbreaking, as Said’s young life and love story ends in his suicide (or at least we are led to believe that he made that decision).

                  A really interesting thing that I read was that the Israelis and Palestinians fought over whether the film was Israeli or Palestinian.  I think this obviously points to the film’s success: if the film were openly biased, there would have been no fight over it, except to disprove it by the side offended.  Instead, the film is moderate, focusing more on the characters and what goes on in their heads, rather than on the politics of the situation.

The Two Short Stories

            Both of the short stories, The Lawsuit and A Long-Term Plan, were well-picked stories for us to read as a class.  I thought both stories were interesting enough to want to read, and both kept you reading.  Personally, I liked The Lawsuit better, though I thought A Long-Term Plan was more ironic and had a clearer moral and storyline than the Lawsuit.

                  What I enjoyed about The Lawsuit was that it was a very human story.  It also showed what strife can come about when a man marries more than one woman, and how that strife affects all members of the family.  But maybe what I enjoyed the most was that the story had a HAPPY ending!  Most of the stories we have been reading do not have any sort of happy ending, but this one was different.  Even though so much has happened to the main character in the story, he moves on with his life, and even forgives the woman that caused so much strife in his family.  The story was very realistic in that nothing was perfect (in fact, everything was very imperfect), but it also underlined the timeless message of forgiveness.

                  I found the second story’s title, A Long-Term Plan, to be particularly amusing.  The fact that the main character was basically a lazy, selfish man with absolutely no plan for his future totally contradicted the title.  The character mistreated others, especially his mother, and abused the generosity of all his friends, living parasitically off everyone around him.  Then when his mother died and all of what little money he had disappears, he “wins the lottery,” so to speak, and becomes a millionaire.  But a little while later he dies, spending his last moments in loneliness.  The moral of this story seemed to be that one will never have a happy ending- even if he wins a million bucks- if he spends his life devoted to self.

Gold Dust

                  Gold Dust.  Wow, quite an original little book!  When I first started reading, I thought to myself, “This might be a nice story about a little boy and his beloved camel.  Cool, this resembles our stories of kids with their horses!”  But as I got farther into the story, my feelings changed toward the book.  My feelings toward Ukhayyad especially changed.  In the beginning, I thought he was a little cocky, but I really started to like him when he showed his love for his camel, especially during the gruesome scene where he is dragged through the fields, hanging onto the camel’s tail.  But when he was expressing that everything would be lost and that saving the piebald was worth nothing if his color did not come back as beautiful as before, I thought, “Wow, this kid has got a major pride issue.”  Ukhayyad just seemed to want to be better than others by having this gorgeous Mahri camel, and though he really seemed to love him as his dearest and only friend, his perspective changed when the Mahri lost his beauty.  It seemed that he would not have loved the piebald/Mahri if he had not been just that- a purebred.  I maintained some respect for Ukhayyad, until the part where he devorced his wife and son in order to keep his camel.  The way he referred to women in the novel, especially his own wife, as “deceivers” and “traps” caused me to lose all respect for him.  Even more, he referred to his own little boy as a terrible burden, and not as a privilege. 

                  I think it is wonderful that Ukhayyad loved his animal devotedly, but this devotion meant nothing if he could not devote himself to his own family, nor see the love and friendship they could offer him.  Granted, he seemed to find this out after he had already divorced his wife, but the fact that he even came to that decision amazed me.  Oh, well, I guess I will have to see how the book ends!

The Children's Books

We had some great discussions about the two children’s books in class today, Sami and the Time of Troubles and The Day of Ahmed’s Secret. I never realized how much discussion could be generated from two kids’ books!
The first book, The Day of Ahmed’s Secret, portrayed Cairo beautifully, I felt. I thought the mix of the “old” look and the “new” look was cool (It seemed accurate from pictures I have seen as well, but I hope to go there to see for myself!). The old architecture in the pictures is beautiful, and something to be preserved as history. Egypt has such a rich history, and I think these pictures may help kids to have a better appreciation of it.

The second book, Sami and the Time of Troubles, had quite a theme for a children’s book. The story definitely makes children and adults alike ponder conflict situations in the Middle East and their effects on children there. The point that Molly made about children being used for a political agenda was very important, though. Children can be used to push someone’s own political agenda, because children are helpless and need someone to defend them; therefore, we empathize with them much easier than we do with an adult. The point also was made that we should take time to look at political situations through innocent children’s eyes; this, too, is important. A third point was made that the kids were playing with guns, and then they were talking about growing up to have real guns. Some thought that this may point fingers at these people as being the main perpetrators; but I do not think this is the case here. The implication of the boys growing up to play with real guns just shows the reality of the situation; it does not point fingers. For all we as readers know, the boys could merely be defending themselves. Plus, let’s face it: little boys love toy guns, and grown boys love real ones!
All in all, these books were great choices for books to read!

Discussion on War in the Land of Egypt

I really enjoyed our class today and the book War in the Land of Egypt. I hope everyone else enjoyed it as well, and not just me! I am so glad that Dr. Mughazy was able to come today and be of so much help in our discussion.
Some of the things that Dr. Mughazy brought up in class struck me as being extremely important. The first thing is that he said there are only three options for those affected by a corrupt system, but who are not strong enough to overthrow it: 1) that they die for it in attempt to change it, 2) that they simply run from it and their fellow citizens, or 3) that they join it. This is a powerful statement, especially when we are analyzing a different culture and are often prone to judging it for the choices its people make. How do people like the ones in Egypt fight the corruption in their government? Yes, it is up to individuals to take a stand against corruption, but what about when their family suffers from their choice to stand up? And what if their choice to stand up simply does not make any difference in the grand scheme of things? We may judge Masri’s choices, but I wonder if any one of us would have chosen differently if we were put in his situation.
We also discussed the fact that the war in the book really refers to the war between “the have’s and the have-not’s.” It is a war where people are squeezing money out of others “below” them just so that they can give someone “above” them money- someone who is requiring more from them than what they are able to give them. This is sad! So corruption is a self-continued and self-contained system, starting from the top-down. And the “fixer” like the one in the book is needed not to get what you want, but what is yours that someone has taken from you.
All of these thoughts were sobering to me, and made me consider how I might react in a situation like Masri’s.

The Trip to the Mosque

The trip to the mosque on Thursday was very interesting (there I go using that word again!).  Figuring that I would not have gone there on my own, it was probably a good field trip for our class to take.  It was nice of the Imam to let us come and to give us such a long tour.

                  I thought the building itself was very interesting.  From the outside, I never would have guessed that the building was a mosque!  And it looks so small from the outside, but is rather large inside!  I thought that the architecture, especially on the new front, was very pretty.  I had forgotten that the pointed arches are supposed to be shaped to point toward heaven- that is a rather neat way to design architecture.   And did anyone else notice the lines on the carpet?  I think they were orientated in a way so that everyone knows which way to kneel.   Also, the fact that were no chairs, or very few, even present in the building very different from what I am used to seeing in any “social” building.

                  I thought it was very different how they separate the men and the women in the mosque, but I did think I understood better after the Imam explained why the women would not want to be praying in front of the men, and I agreed.  Still, it was very different to see a women’s “wing” on the one side of the building, separate from the men’s or main “wing” on the other side.

                  I was disappointed and wished that the Imam had allowed for us to ask more questions at the end.  I also wondered what everyone else thought about the verses from the Koran that we read.  It was probably the first time (or one of the first times) that most of us had read anything from it.  So what did everyone think?

Thoughts from the movie and class...

                  First off, I really struggled with this post, because I do not agree with homosexuality.  I think that it goes against God’s original intentions for His creation.  That being said, it is impossible to argue my own beliefs, because they are what I consider to be truth, but others may not.  I cannot force my own beliefs on anyone else, and I hope that no one takes this as just a harsh judgment of mine on people with different beliefs, namely homosexuals.                   

Now as for my thoughts on the film and the topic of homosexuality as it relates to the Middle East.  First, although the fact that homosexuality is not altogether rejected in many parts of the Middle East seems to go against our original stereotypes of the Middle East, it is not wholly surprising if one looks deeper.  First, much segregation still exists between males and females in many parts of the Middle East.  When men and boys are deprived of interacting with women outside their own family, or at least only allowed to have very limited interactions, it is not surprising that they find other avenues for their passions.  Someone in the movie mentioned this segregation (or limited exposure) as leading to “a lot of frustrated people.”  Can you blame them? 

The part where they portrayed certain Koranic schools (I’m not sure when and where these school were located- that would be VERY important) as promoting- or even forcing- homosexual relations as a part of learning and developing as an adolescent was disturbing.  If you cannot force someone not to be homosexual, you certainly should not force them to be homosexual!  Now they did not talk very long on this subject, so I would be interested to find out the validity of the information that was given. 

                  And as for homosexual marriages existing before heterosexual marriages, that is a bit of a contradiction.  There had to be heterosexual marriages (or at least intimate relationships) in order to populate the earth enough to be able to have homosexual relations.  We all know that the basic family structure is man, woman, and children, whether we accept it or not.  Why then would we call it the “traditional” family?

                  As to gay churches, and how Islam views homosexuality versus how Christianity views it, I can at least address what Christianity says about it.  Even though there are popular movements to accept gays and lesbians, if you go back to the original text that founded Christianity, the Bible, it clearly condemns it.

                  With all of this being said, I just want to say that I have nothing against homosexuals themselves- they are humans just as anyone else, and deserve to be treated as such, with love and care.  I only have problems with the practice- and my opinions are not exactly the issue here.  The issue is that I am not wholly surprised about how the Middle East relates to homosexuals.  

The Escape

                  The second film that I watched for my group (Arabic Literature) is titled The Escape, and it features Ahmed Zaki as its main actor.  This film was interesting, but I did not enjoy it quite as much as I enjoyed A Man in Our House.  But the basic storyline of this film was one of a murderer on the run, similar to A Man in Our House.

                  The main character, Montasser, gets put in prison on charges of murder (of a very evil woman, if I may say so, who is enticing his wife), but he is escapes.  He then accidentally kills another man, and is chased even more.  But every time he is caught, he escapes, until the very end of the movie.  The reason he is so determined to escape is to find his cousin, to whom he is engaged and who has left him for an adulterous lifestyle. 

                  The majority of the film is spent tracking Montasser and his continual escapes.  The journalists follow his story, and people in Egypt cannot decide whether he is a persecuted hero or what the officials’ say, a murderer.   Throughout his escapes, his family helps him, and even an official from his home town, who is supposed to catch him. 

The movie ends tragically, as with pretty much all of the Arabic films I have watched and books I have read!  An interesting topic to research/contemplate would be the fact that most American movies end with “happily ever after,” while most Arabic films end with “happily never after.”  Why is this so?   We as Americans love to see our dreams come true, while Arabs seem to have a much more sobering way to view life.  Americans seem to be idealists, while Arabs seem to be realists.  Now I realize that I am simplifying this idea, but it is worth contemplating!