Rendition: Middle East and its presentation in Hollywood
I did not get to see the movie Rendition when it first came out, but I saw it recently on DVD. I never expect good out of Hollywood: in fact, I expect the worst when liberals tell me that a particular film, like Munich, is “sensitive”, or not that bad. Rendition is politically good in talking about the plight of an innocent Arab-American: it was good how it showed that some Arab-Americans can be seen as integrated into American life. But there are certain things that always bother me. Let us start with the Israeli factor. In every movie on the Middle East, you see an Israeli hand or foot or more. This one was no exception: there were Israeli actors who played Arab actors. Hell, the Arab who got the most screen time was an Israeli actor. And usually they shoot the Arab scenes in Israel but in this movie they shot them in Morocco. So that was good. And usually, characters speak atrocious Arabic with a heavy Hebrew accent, where Husayn becomes Khuuuuuuuuuuuseini. Not in this movie, and I waited for the final credit to see they hired an Arabic coach and translator. I forgot her name but the translations were not that accurate overall and the accents were quite inconsistent. This is common in such movies: you find the mother speaking in a Moroccan accent, while the father speaking Egyptian accent, and the kids speak Syrian accents, and some in the movie were speaking Fusha. Don’t get me wrong: this movie was better in that it showed the Arab characters speaking Arabic and we got subtitles. That was a step forward. But there were other problems in the Arabic: the sings of the demonstrators were in bad Arabic and sometimes placards carried half sentences. (Like one sign said that “Let America Go”, and I assumed that they were translating from a sentence that was intended to say “Let America go to hell”.) And there were other cultural problems: of course, praying and Qur’an is always big, but at least they showed one Muslim character drinking whiskey. That is realistic. But at one point, the fundamentalist militants were listening to music by Marcel Khalifah: Khalifah the communist. What was that? That aroused my interest regarding the Middle East experts who advised the movie makers. I waited to the very end and saw that they hired two “cultural experts” on the Middle East: one is a certain Noureddin Abedine and the other is Reza Aslan. I never heard of the first one and don’t be surprised if it is a code name for an Israeli expert. The second guy is no expert on the Arab world and does not speak Arabic, and has not even finished his graduate degree in the Middle East (he is still a PhD student at UC, Santa Barbara). And why do Middle East characters are always sweaty and jittery in movies? And why do they always invoke Allah (or Allaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah, as they pronounce it in American movies and media for extra emphasis?) And Middle East women always appear as “grieving widows”: they looks sad, somber, and listless. Why is that? And did I hear the annoying voice of Ofra Haza in this movie? Why? And the suicide bomber portrayal is always wrong in Hollywood movies in that the character is seen forced or compelled or coerced while in reality they are the one who press their handlers and recruiters to send them (and I am afraid that it was no exception Paradise Now by Hany Abu As`ad and I have discussed the matter with him). And in this movie, there were people ready to shoot the suicide bomber if he failed to detonate the bomb. And that never happens in real life. I don’t know of one case in the Middle East where it happened although it may have happened with Tamil Tigers. And why do Middle East men always appear gruff and rough and cold? With the exception of the Green Card holder guy who was married to the the characters played by Reese Witherspoon. And one bothersome element in the movie: the sight of the CIA operative played by Gyllenhaal agonizing over the suffering of the torture victims while the Arabs involved had no conscience. The White Man always comes to the rescue in such movies, and the CIA operative in this movie was no exception. And why does Arab life in such movies appear cartoonish? Everything is exaggerated. And the portrayal of the Interior Minister in Morocco (although they left the Middle East North African country unnamed, but only identified as a North African country) and the chief of the secret police is not accurate: those usually are henchmen who are more likely to answer to the CIA station chief than to the prime minister. I finished the movie thinking: I would rather that the Middle East be left alone and ignored in American culture, than be dealt with “sensitively.” Spare me liberal Hollywood sensitivity, please.
PS Since I received at least one response on this point, I don’t mean that we should require elite qualifications before people can speak about the Middle East. That was not what I said: I only believe in specialization and training (like in Plato’s Republic without the belief in the different metals of people). And just as carpenters should be trained, Middle East specialists who offer expert opinions should also be trained. That was my point. Also, in the movie there is a scene of a fame AlJazeera newscast: it was so bad and the female broadcaster spoke awkward Arabic and was typically veiled when of the tens of news female broadcasters on AlJazeera, only one is veiled.
Posted by As’ad at 9:23 AM
By Tammy Obeidallah
Congratulations to President Barack Obama for duping the Arab and Muslim community in America yet again with another hollow speech. He became the darling of many by opening his recent Cairo address with “Assalamu Aleikum.” So he is better at languages and public relations than G.W. Bush. Other than that, there is little difference between the two administrations.
First, there is the matter of closing the detention center at Guantanamo Bay. Obama has backpedaled on the issue of releasing photos of prisoner abuse citing it would “enflame anti-American sentiment.” Sound familiar? Then there is the manufactured red tape regarding which country will take the detainees once they are released. Common sense dictates they should be dropped off wherever U.S. soldiers captured them before unlawfully whisking them away to an overseas limbo.
If Obama supporters can stop fist-bumping long enough at their success in bringing hope and change to the masses, they might have time to raise these points and also question the status of detainees at Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan, America’s new Guantanamo. If they get around to it, maybe they can also ask why Obama (like Bush in the beginning of his first term) pay lip service to the idea of a Palestinian state without holding the Israelis accountable for their actions.
By JEFF ZELENY and HELENE COOPER
Published: June 4, 2009
CAIRO — President Obama pledged on Thursday to “seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world,” imploring America and the Islamic world to drop their suspicions of one another and forge new alliances to confront violent extremism and heal religious divides.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Bushama Speaks: Pitfalls of Economism
This exchange from the interview with AlArabiyya TV (the station of King Fahd’s brother-in-law) summarizes it for me:
“THE PRESIDENT: Well, here’s what I think is important. Look at the proposal that was put forth by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia —
Q Right.
THE PRESIDENT: I might not agree with every aspect of the proposal, but it took great courage —
Q Absolutely.”
There are several things to be said about this interview, and I don’t believe that there is anything new in it whatsoever.
I mean, CNN is lauding it as an example of how Obama (or Bushama) is willing to reach out to the Muslim world.
I listened to it on my way from SF last night and CNN aired it in full.
First, if the Bushama really wants to be different from Bush he would have selected AlJazeera and not al-Arabiyya. I mean, CNN does not know that Bush spoke to Arabic TV stations regularly, and Rice was a fixture on Al-Arabiyya TV. And they selected Al-Arabiyya because it is “friendly” to US interests and because on Al-Arabiyya TV US officials get softball questions.
If Obama wanted to be different he would have chosen Al-Jazeera because it is the Arabs’ favorite channel. Al-Arabiyya is the US government’s favorite channel, and the US under Obama does not seem to want to respect the choices and preference of the Arab population.
Secondly, Obama chose this station because he wanted to appease the Saudi royal family especially after the moping remarks of Prince Turki–the midwife of Al-Qa`idah and a key ally of the US.
This president is signaling that he will be no different than Bush in coddling the Saudi Wahhabi dictatorship–a key ally of Israel today. Do you notice that Israel does not even make token noise about Saudi arms sales? It used to prod its lobby here in the US to put stiff resistance to any arms sale to Saudi Arabia, and then they deny the existence of a Saudi-Israeli conspiracy.
Apparently, the Saudi King was not pleased that Obama or Bushama called Abu Mazen (the usurping president of the puppet PA) and Mubarak–and of course Olmert–on his first day on the job but not the Saudi autocrat. The president then called him the next day and the Saudi news agency reported that they discussed ways to even “strengthen and expand” the Saudi-American relations. Don’t ever believe the promises of any presidential candidate regarding human rights or democracy when it comes to the Middle East: look at the example of the disgraced and failed president, Jimmy Carter who can’t stop producing boring and insignificant books on the Middle East.
Thirdly, there is nothing that Bushama said that was not said by Bush. The CNN guest, Aslan something who always impresses me with his lack of knowledge on the Middle East when he speaks on the Middle East, kept saying in awe that the president spoke respectfully about respect in his address to Muslims and Arabs. But so did Bush, and Bush went to a mosque in Washington, DC–in order to prepare for the bombs and missiles to fall on Muslim and Arab heads.
Fourthly, Obama in talking about the Middle East–the Palestine question and beyond–suffers from an acute case of “economism” or economic reductionism. He has the tendency to reduce all Arab and Muslim issues to job and medical care. It is NOT only the economy–stupid. It is also about pride and dignity and Palestine AND about freedom from the severe oppression that people suffer under governments that are coddled and armed by the very same US of A. So the words fall hollow here.
Fifthly, Obama as a representative of the White Man (and he can also be referred to as the White Man, analytically speaking just as Margaret Thatcher was a representative of the White Man) did not deviate from the deep racism that characterizes US foreign policy to the Arab-Israeli conflict. I mean when he refers to Israel’s security as “paramount” he is basically saying (like previous US president) that the security of the Palestinians is inferior because they are seen as inferior people.
There is no question about that. It means that and the racism is reflected clearly in the disregard of Israeli WMDs. It never comes up in any interview with US officials on Al-Arabiyya (it is featured regularly in AlJazeera as yesterday’s interview with Brent Ccowcroft showed). Karl Marx wrote somewhere about the danger of covering up the chain with flowers. Obama is no different than Bush but American bombs and missiles under his administration will be decorated and covered with flowers. If that is a reason to celebrate, please open the champagne bottles NOW.
Source
band annie's Weblog 