Biography of Conejo
Conejo’s parents were killed when he was young. He grew up in coffee growing community that was alternately terrorized by guerilla soldiers and army soldiers. When he was around 10 the army arrived in his village determined to wipe out all of the guerilla supporters. He was brought to the school house, which was converted into a detention center, to work for the soldiers. One of soldiers suggested to the commander that they bring Conejo along with them as a mascot. Conejo was eager to leave his poverty stricken community and was disappointed by the commander’s refusal. When he was around 12 a doctor visited his community looking for a young doctor who had worked in the village. Conejo offered himself as the doctor’s guide. Accompanying the doctor on his journey, Conejo was surprised that his older white man was not used to violence. He began to wonder about the world the doctor had come from.
At the end of his journey with the doctor, they arrived at the hidden community called Cerca de Cielo. The doctor died shortly after they arrived, but Conejo, Domingo, a deserter from the army, and a young woman from the Community of Hope remained in Cerca de Cielo. Conejo was curious about Domingo’s choice to leave the army. Overtime, Domingo shared with Conejo his discomfort with the brutality of the army. Conejo, who was growing restless, decided he wanted to leave. At age 15 he began his journey to the city the doctor had left three years earlier. He never made it to the city. Along the way he came across a group of guerilla soldiers and decided to join them. He was excited to belong to a group and felt he was defending his people. Conejo was killed by army soldiers two years later.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Saturday, January 24, 2009
The Official Story
Gaby's Biography
Born in an Argentine prison, Gaby was sold to a wealthy Argentine couple shortly after she was born. Her birth parents are among the disappeared, there bodies have not been found and there is no record of there death. Her adopted parents, Roberto and Alicia, raised Gaby until the anniversary of her 5th year with them, which is the date they named her birthday. It is not known if this is Gaby’s actual birthday since there is no record of her birth at any hospital. Shortly after her 5th birthday, Gaby went to live with her birth mother’s mother. Her adoptive parents divorced and while she saw Alicia regularly, she never saw Roberto again.
It was a scary and confusing transition. Her grandmother showed her photographs of her parents, which she later had copied and framed. Gaby keeps the photo of her parents standing outside smiling, her mother pregnant, but not showing, on her bedside table. Gaby loved the story of her parents’ romance; it is still one of her favorite stories and she asks her grandmother to tell it frequently. As a little girl, she loved to look at the photo of her mother at age 5, amazed to look just like her. She had confusing dreams and nightmares and would cry out for her mother.
At age 13, she began to ask questions about her parents death, how she been adopted by Roberto and Alicia without her grandmother’s permission or knowledge, and how her grandmother had found her. She refused to celebrate her 15th birthday because it was not her real birthday. When Alicia arrived with a present, Gaby lashed out at her blaming her for her parents’ death and for using money to buy Gaby and take her away from her real family. They did not speak for six months. It was Gaby’s grandmother that finally brought them back together.
Today, Gaby is teaching high school history. She has a two year old daughter, named after her birth mother.
Born in an Argentine prison, Gaby was sold to a wealthy Argentine couple shortly after she was born. Her birth parents are among the disappeared, there bodies have not been found and there is no record of there death. Her adopted parents, Roberto and Alicia, raised Gaby until the anniversary of her 5th year with them, which is the date they named her birthday. It is not known if this is Gaby’s actual birthday since there is no record of her birth at any hospital. Shortly after her 5th birthday, Gaby went to live with her birth mother’s mother. Her adoptive parents divorced and while she saw Alicia regularly, she never saw Roberto again.
It was a scary and confusing transition. Her grandmother showed her photographs of her parents, which she later had copied and framed. Gaby keeps the photo of her parents standing outside smiling, her mother pregnant, but not showing, on her bedside table. Gaby loved the story of her parents’ romance; it is still one of her favorite stories and she asks her grandmother to tell it frequently. As a little girl, she loved to look at the photo of her mother at age 5, amazed to look just like her. She had confusing dreams and nightmares and would cry out for her mother.
At age 13, she began to ask questions about her parents death, how she been adopted by Roberto and Alicia without her grandmother’s permission or knowledge, and how her grandmother had found her. She refused to celebrate her 15th birthday because it was not her real birthday. When Alicia arrived with a present, Gaby lashed out at her blaming her for her parents’ death and for using money to buy Gaby and take her away from her real family. They did not speak for six months. It was Gaby’s grandmother that finally brought them back together.
Today, Gaby is teaching high school history. She has a two year old daughter, named after her birth mother.
Missing
The US government was complicit in the death of Charles Horman in Chile in 1973.
1. The CIA, US military, and US government acted to conceal information surrounding US involvement in Chili and consequently complicity in Horman’s death in the years following the coup. This not only impeded the initial investigation into Horman’s death; it now serves to demonstrate that the US had motives for sanctioning Horman’s death.
2. Although the Government of Chile (GOC) claims the Horman was found shot dead in the street, Rafael Gonzalez, former Chilean military intelligence officer, was present when Horman was sentenced to death in the office of the Chief of Military Intelligence. Gonzalez also will testify that a US American was present when this decision was made.
3. A memo included in the State Department states, “there is some circumstantial evidence to suggest…US intelligence my have played an unfortunate part in Horman’s death. At best it was limited to providing or confirming information that helped motivate his murder by the GOC. At worst, US intelligence was aware the GOC saw Horman in rather a serious light and US officials did not nothing to discourage the logical outcome of GOC paranoia.” Either scenario points to US involvement in Horman’s detention, therefore the US officials involved must be considered complicit with the outcome of the detention, Harmon’s death.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Rwanda
Philip Gourevitch’s book, We wish to inform that tomorrow we will be killed with our families: Stories from Rwanda, begins with what appears to be a messy knotted ball of yarn, the 1994 genocide of nearly one million Rwandan Tutsis which, even when acknowledged, has been dismissed by the West as the outcome of an age old ethnic conflict that has resulted in the death and displacement of large numbers of both Tutsi and Hutu Rwandans. Gourevitch carefully pulls this mess apart, seeking to reveal not only the genocide itself, but how Western understanding of the non-Western world shaped the decision not to intervene.
The book contains many discussions between Gourevitch and Paul Rusesabagina, whose story was made into the film Hotel Rwanda. I appreciated the film for sharing Rusesabagina’s story, for depicting the 1994 genocide, and for emphasizing the lack of international intervention along with the ineffectiveness of the UN peace keepers’ presence. Watching the film with my husband, who has not read Gourevitch’s book, I began to realize that the film perpetuates some of the same patterns of Western perception of the non-Western world described by Gourevitch. There were several different groups of armed people in the film. My husband kept asking me, who are they? What side are they on? The film aims to depict the genocide and ignores the politics. Gourevitch discusses the significance of the Western world not seeing the politics involved in conflicts throughout the non-Western world and in particular in Rwanda. The West chose to see ethnic conflict, instead of the political ideology of Hutu Power. The first basis for understanding Rwanda allowed the West not to intervene and not to call the murdering of the Tutsis genocide. Although the film clearly takes the position that genocide was committed, it is very unclear about the political organization that desired the genocide.
Gourevitch argues that one of Hutu Power’s objectives is to equate ethnicity with political identity, which was not true in Rwanda before 1994 or after 1994. The Hutu Power propaganda described a civil war between Hutus and Tutsis that did not exist. There was never and is still not an organized group in Rwanda of Tutsis whose aim is to exterminate all Hutus. This is why in the film Rusesabagina does not believe the president was assassinated by Tutsi rebels. However, the film never tells us that Rusesabagina is right.
Through the stories of survivors in the book, we learn about neighbors killing their neighbors, school teachers killing their students, doctors killing their patients, clergy killing their congregants, and the list goes on. Gourevitch presents the horror of these betrayals during the genocide and in its aftermath as victim and murder are left to reside in the same community. In the film, we are in the safety of the hotel and are not witnesses to intimate betrayals. I don’t think the film represents the genocide accurately by ignoring the religious and civic leaders who lured large groups of Tutsis to their deaths by pretending to provide safe havens for them. Reading the accounts about clergy who welcomed Tutsis into their churches and then left them to be slaughtered or participated in the killing, left me horrified. How could these religious men possibly justify the killing of their own congregants?
The majority of Rwandans are Christian’s, but you would never know that from the film. This bothers me. The only religious figures, nuns and a priest, we see in the film are white missionaries who arrive with orphans and then get on a bus and run away. The only hint at religion from Rwandans is the cross on Rusesabagina’s wife’s necklace.
The non-religious depiction of Rwandans ignores that Tutsis and Hutus shared the same religion and share the same religion as the majority of people in the US and Europe.
I think it is part of a Western desire both to disassociate with the victims and the killers, part of keeping Rwandans as others in order not to get involved.
Throughout the book, Gourevitch returns to identity. We see how the US and Europe identify Africans. We see how Belgians impose an identity on Rwanda’s Hutus and Tutsis. We see how Ugandans see Rwandans. We see how many different Rwandans view themselves and their people. The book is filled with all the effects and collisions of these different ways of seeing and being seen. The film hints at this in the scene when the UN officer tells Rusesabagina that there will be no intervention because the West doesn’t care about Africans. And these multiple perceptions are present later when Rusesabagina shares with his wife that he feels foolish for believing he was seen as part of the West’s world. Perhaps a film cannot get at these complexities the way a book can.
The book contains many discussions between Gourevitch and Paul Rusesabagina, whose story was made into the film Hotel Rwanda. I appreciated the film for sharing Rusesabagina’s story, for depicting the 1994 genocide, and for emphasizing the lack of international intervention along with the ineffectiveness of the UN peace keepers’ presence. Watching the film with my husband, who has not read Gourevitch’s book, I began to realize that the film perpetuates some of the same patterns of Western perception of the non-Western world described by Gourevitch. There were several different groups of armed people in the film. My husband kept asking me, who are they? What side are they on? The film aims to depict the genocide and ignores the politics. Gourevitch discusses the significance of the Western world not seeing the politics involved in conflicts throughout the non-Western world and in particular in Rwanda. The West chose to see ethnic conflict, instead of the political ideology of Hutu Power. The first basis for understanding Rwanda allowed the West not to intervene and not to call the murdering of the Tutsis genocide. Although the film clearly takes the position that genocide was committed, it is very unclear about the political organization that desired the genocide.
Gourevitch argues that one of Hutu Power’s objectives is to equate ethnicity with political identity, which was not true in Rwanda before 1994 or after 1994. The Hutu Power propaganda described a civil war between Hutus and Tutsis that did not exist. There was never and is still not an organized group in Rwanda of Tutsis whose aim is to exterminate all Hutus. This is why in the film Rusesabagina does not believe the president was assassinated by Tutsi rebels. However, the film never tells us that Rusesabagina is right.
Through the stories of survivors in the book, we learn about neighbors killing their neighbors, school teachers killing their students, doctors killing their patients, clergy killing their congregants, and the list goes on. Gourevitch presents the horror of these betrayals during the genocide and in its aftermath as victim and murder are left to reside in the same community. In the film, we are in the safety of the hotel and are not witnesses to intimate betrayals. I don’t think the film represents the genocide accurately by ignoring the religious and civic leaders who lured large groups of Tutsis to their deaths by pretending to provide safe havens for them. Reading the accounts about clergy who welcomed Tutsis into their churches and then left them to be slaughtered or participated in the killing, left me horrified. How could these religious men possibly justify the killing of their own congregants?
The majority of Rwandans are Christian’s, but you would never know that from the film. This bothers me. The only religious figures, nuns and a priest, we see in the film are white missionaries who arrive with orphans and then get on a bus and run away. The only hint at religion from Rwandans is the cross on Rusesabagina’s wife’s necklace.
The non-religious depiction of Rwandans ignores that Tutsis and Hutus shared the same religion and share the same religion as the majority of people in the US and Europe.
I think it is part of a Western desire both to disassociate with the victims and the killers, part of keeping Rwandans as others in order not to get involved.
Throughout the book, Gourevitch returns to identity. We see how the US and Europe identify Africans. We see how Belgians impose an identity on Rwanda’s Hutus and Tutsis. We see how Ugandans see Rwandans. We see how many different Rwandans view themselves and their people. The book is filled with all the effects and collisions of these different ways of seeing and being seen. The film hints at this in the scene when the UN officer tells Rusesabagina that there will be no intervention because the West doesn’t care about Africans. And these multiple perceptions are present later when Rusesabagina shares with his wife that he feels foolish for believing he was seen as part of the West’s world. Perhaps a film cannot get at these complexities the way a book can.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Paradise Now
Paradise Now is a beautiful and moving film that is far from being a piece of pro-terrorist propaganda as the petition against its Oscar nomination implies. I strongly disagree with the petition’s claims that the film is an attempt to “explain away the actions behind mass-murderers” and that the film glorifies mass-murder and will incite more murders. The petition is based upon Yossi Zur’s interpretation of the film which is included in the petition. Zur is an Israeli whose son was murdered on a bus by a suicide bomber. Zur’s inaccurate summary of the film, in which he relates that the film ends when they get on a bus full of children and blow it up, suggests that he is thinking of his own loss not evaluating what he saw in the film. By writing “they” he ignores the most significant part of the film, that the men make different decisions. He cannot deal with this aspect of the film because he cannot acknowledge the Palestinian men as individuals. Zur argues that murders are not human and do not doubt. I don’t think Zur’s real issue with the film is mass-murder. I think he is uncomfortable with the humanizing of his enemy.
This becomes clear when he states, "That the Israelis are to blame for this brutal killing? Are the Israelis to blame for the Twin Towers in New York, the night club in Indonesia, the hotel in Egypt, the shop in Turkey, the restaurant in Morocco or in Tunis, the hotel in Jordan, the underground in London, the train in Spain? And the list goes on and on." Here he is grouping together several different terrorist atrocities as though they were all committed by the same group. This statement essentially says that all Arab terrorism is the same. Zur completely denies that this film is about the Palestinian movement and the relationship between Palestine and Israel.
While I agree with the counter-petition that Paradise Now should remain a nominee, I disagree with their interpretation of the film and how they have framed their argument. The issue of censorship in the arts is thrown in at the end, like an after thought or a covering of all their bases. Censorship, rather than the merits of the content of the film, would have made a more compelling argument. The film was nominated so its merits were already acknowledged. I would have argued that the film is not propaganda, but a work of art and should not be censored.
The counter-petition seemed to be more concerned with the Palestinian cause than with censorship. It repeatedly mentions the necessity of showing the other side of the story emphasizing that there are two sides, one of which is ignored by the media. In addition to its position that the film remain a nominee, it argues that the film remain listed as “from Palestine” not as “from Palestinian Authority.” Arguing that switching the origin of the film denies the historical and present existence of a group of people. I would have added that the film’s director, Hany Abu-Assad, although born in Israel, identifies himself as Palestinian.
The counter-petition found the film to illustrate “how the use of their bodies has become the only form of resistance made available to them,” but it “does not attempt to ‘legitimize’ the bombings.” I disagree that this is the films message, but for arguments sake, if the message is that their bodies are the only form of resistance left, than violence is the only way to resist and the bombings are legitimized. It is not possible to differentiate the choice to be a suicide bomber from the out come of a suicide bombing. This interpretation feels like an attempt to legitimize the author(s)’s pro-violence view of the Palestinian movement, while countering the opposition’s argument against the film.
This becomes clear when he states, "That the Israelis are to blame for this brutal killing? Are the Israelis to blame for the Twin Towers in New York, the night club in Indonesia, the hotel in Egypt, the shop in Turkey, the restaurant in Morocco or in Tunis, the hotel in Jordan, the underground in London, the train in Spain? And the list goes on and on." Here he is grouping together several different terrorist atrocities as though they were all committed by the same group. This statement essentially says that all Arab terrorism is the same. Zur completely denies that this film is about the Palestinian movement and the relationship between Palestine and Israel.
While I agree with the counter-petition that Paradise Now should remain a nominee, I disagree with their interpretation of the film and how they have framed their argument. The issue of censorship in the arts is thrown in at the end, like an after thought or a covering of all their bases. Censorship, rather than the merits of the content of the film, would have made a more compelling argument. The film was nominated so its merits were already acknowledged. I would have argued that the film is not propaganda, but a work of art and should not be censored.
The counter-petition seemed to be more concerned with the Palestinian cause than with censorship. It repeatedly mentions the necessity of showing the other side of the story emphasizing that there are two sides, one of which is ignored by the media. In addition to its position that the film remain a nominee, it argues that the film remain listed as “from Palestine” not as “from Palestinian Authority.” Arguing that switching the origin of the film denies the historical and present existence of a group of people. I would have added that the film’s director, Hany Abu-Assad, although born in Israel, identifies himself as Palestinian.
The counter-petition found the film to illustrate “how the use of their bodies has become the only form of resistance made available to them,” but it “does not attempt to ‘legitimize’ the bombings.” I disagree that this is the films message, but for arguments sake, if the message is that their bodies are the only form of resistance left, than violence is the only way to resist and the bombings are legitimized. It is not possible to differentiate the choice to be a suicide bomber from the out come of a suicide bombing. This interpretation feels like an attempt to legitimize the author(s)’s pro-violence view of the Palestinian movement, while countering the opposition’s argument against the film.
Monday, January 5, 2009
Examining Zinat
The first scene between Ashraf and Zinat:
This scene portrays Zinat not just as a doctor, but as a health educator. Ashraf comes in holding her baby; Zinat reaches for the baby and Ashraf pulls away demonstrating her mistrust of Zinat. Next, Ashraf refuses the vaccine Zinat is preparing and accuses Zinat of trying to harm her baby. Ashraf is uncomfortable with Western medicine and the real reason of her visit to the health clinic is revealed when Zinat gets out a can of milk. Zinat pleads with Ashraf to vaccinate the child, but Ashraf rips up her babies paper chart and throws it at Zinat. Then she accuses Zinat of stealing the health clinic’s milk. I think these accusations were meant to show how angry Ashraf was and perhaps to foreshadow the accusations she makes when her baby dies As Zinat pleads with Ashraf to vaccinate the baby, it is clear how important this job is to her and how invested she is in it.
Discussion between Zinat’s parents about her working at the health clinic:
Zinat’s sits doing needle work. She expresses concerns about Zinat. Her mother feels it is changing her, that Zinat is tired all the time. She is annoyed with Zinat’s father for getting her started at the clinic. He replies that all the other girls quite and it wasn’t his fault she was so persistent. The lightheartedness of this remark suggests he is really proud of Zinant. Her mother continues that she is afraid Zinat will get ill from one of her patients. It’s time for her to stop working and get married. Zinat’s father talks about difficult economic times. He wants Zinat to be able to take care of herself. So many husbands die in the Golf, what will she do then? Zinat’s mother dismisses this with a smile, chiding him for talking of bad times. Zinat’s father goes on to mention that he wants Zinat to be happy. This demonstrates how well he knows his daughter. He understands that she will be bored without her own work, while her mother cannot really see her. Her mother argues that happiness is in marriage. She reminds her husband that they were raised with these traditions and Zinat must take her place in them. Her mother’s identity comes from her marriage. She cannot see Zinat as having an identity of her own outside of marriage.
The gender power dynamics were interesting to me in this film, particularly in this scene. It is Zinat’s father that wants to break gender boundaries for his daughter, while her mother wants to maintain the status quo. Later, Zinat’s father forbids her to go to work. Even though the decision originated with Zinat’s mother, her father acts alone in forbidding her to work, enforcing the restriction, and punishing her for being disobedient.
The first scene between Hamed and Zinat:
The first scene between Hamed and Zinat was surprising to me. He was so adamant about marrying her or no one at all; I assumed he was interested in her because he had a similar out look as she did. However, when they met, he quickly dismissed her ideas about continuing to work when they were married. He did not want their children to be neglected while she cared for other people’s children. Zinat protested that she could work and still be devoted to her own family. Hamed replied that if she worked, she would be other people’s wife. The scene left me wondering what, if he was interested in a traditional marriage, had drawn him to Zinat. I was also curious what she thought about him. I think she was hoping he would support her working and be her advocate with their families. This scene solidified that Zinat was alone and would be alone in her marriage.
Dinner between Hamed, Zinat, and Saleleh:
This scene was boring, which matched how Zinat must have been feeling. Hamed comes home from work to the house that Zinat has been locked in all day. Zinat serves dinner for the three of them. Hamed says he is tired and talks a little about his day. Then they are silent. I wondered again why Hamed had wanted to marry an interesting, educated woman if he did not want to talk to her. But I also recognized the complicated dynamics of the third party. How could Zinat truly discuss her day or her emotions with her mother-in-law there? Marriage for Zinat was joining her husband’s family, different from starting a life with one other person. Like Sanglian in Raise the Red Lantern, Zinat must learn and follow the rules of the household she was given to. Sitting silently at dinner, she has no identity. Nothing is expected of her outside of fulfilling her responsibilities.
Looking at Hamed in the final scenes:
When we first meet Hamed, he is defiantly announcing that he will marry Zinat or know one at all. None of this strength and determinedness is present at the end of the film.
When Ashraf banged on the window and Hamed sent her away saying that Zinat was not a doctor, it echoed his mother’s behavior. Both Hamed and his mother were so desperate to hold onto their belief that Zinat should not work that they were willing to disregard the well being of a child. This was a clear moment that showed how the family unit was stronger than the larger community unit. This can also be seen in the layout of the houses, with an inner courtyard enabling life to be contained within the walls of the house.
It was clear with Hamed’s behavior in the room with Ashraf and her sick daughter that he was nervous being around a sick child and doubted Zinat’s abilities to be helpful. When the insertion of the straw is successful and Ashraf returns, Hamed proudly announces that her child is saved. He smiles broadly into the camera acknowledging his amazement at what Zinat has done, but they do not share a moment. It is significant that he gets on the truck at the end of the film, but I would have liked for him to reach out to her, touch her hand or her shoulder, a gesture to show that he sees her.
Revised ending:
Ashraf comes to the window and Hamad turns her away. Then she comes to the door and Saleleh is trying to turn away, while Zinat is concerned and pleads to go. Hamed take Zinat’s side against his mother. Zinat and Hamed the house together. At Ashraf’s Hamed stands while Zinat looks at the child and then ask her if there is anything she can do. Zinat explains the breathing problem and what she must do to Ashraf and Hamid. Ashraf is afraid, but Hamed reassures her. Zinat looks at him and he looks back. Then Ashraf and Hamid hold her child while Zinat makes the cut and inserts the straw. Zinat and Hamid leave Ashraf with her child and sit side by side on the steps. In the morning, they load the child onto the truck. Hamed jumps in. The camera angle changes and we see him from the back, several feet away we see his mother. He looks out at her, then reaches out his hand and looks down. Zinat places her hand in his. The camera angle changes and we see her from the back as Hamed is helping her into the truck. The truck begins to move as she settles in next to him.
This scene portrays Zinat not just as a doctor, but as a health educator. Ashraf comes in holding her baby; Zinat reaches for the baby and Ashraf pulls away demonstrating her mistrust of Zinat. Next, Ashraf refuses the vaccine Zinat is preparing and accuses Zinat of trying to harm her baby. Ashraf is uncomfortable with Western medicine and the real reason of her visit to the health clinic is revealed when Zinat gets out a can of milk. Zinat pleads with Ashraf to vaccinate the child, but Ashraf rips up her babies paper chart and throws it at Zinat. Then she accuses Zinat of stealing the health clinic’s milk. I think these accusations were meant to show how angry Ashraf was and perhaps to foreshadow the accusations she makes when her baby dies As Zinat pleads with Ashraf to vaccinate the baby, it is clear how important this job is to her and how invested she is in it.
Discussion between Zinat’s parents about her working at the health clinic:
Zinat’s sits doing needle work. She expresses concerns about Zinat. Her mother feels it is changing her, that Zinat is tired all the time. She is annoyed with Zinat’s father for getting her started at the clinic. He replies that all the other girls quite and it wasn’t his fault she was so persistent. The lightheartedness of this remark suggests he is really proud of Zinant. Her mother continues that she is afraid Zinat will get ill from one of her patients. It’s time for her to stop working and get married. Zinat’s father talks about difficult economic times. He wants Zinat to be able to take care of herself. So many husbands die in the Golf, what will she do then? Zinat’s mother dismisses this with a smile, chiding him for talking of bad times. Zinat’s father goes on to mention that he wants Zinat to be happy. This demonstrates how well he knows his daughter. He understands that she will be bored without her own work, while her mother cannot really see her. Her mother argues that happiness is in marriage. She reminds her husband that they were raised with these traditions and Zinat must take her place in them. Her mother’s identity comes from her marriage. She cannot see Zinat as having an identity of her own outside of marriage.
The gender power dynamics were interesting to me in this film, particularly in this scene. It is Zinat’s father that wants to break gender boundaries for his daughter, while her mother wants to maintain the status quo. Later, Zinat’s father forbids her to go to work. Even though the decision originated with Zinat’s mother, her father acts alone in forbidding her to work, enforcing the restriction, and punishing her for being disobedient.
The first scene between Hamed and Zinat:
The first scene between Hamed and Zinat was surprising to me. He was so adamant about marrying her or no one at all; I assumed he was interested in her because he had a similar out look as she did. However, when they met, he quickly dismissed her ideas about continuing to work when they were married. He did not want their children to be neglected while she cared for other people’s children. Zinat protested that she could work and still be devoted to her own family. Hamed replied that if she worked, she would be other people’s wife. The scene left me wondering what, if he was interested in a traditional marriage, had drawn him to Zinat. I was also curious what she thought about him. I think she was hoping he would support her working and be her advocate with their families. This scene solidified that Zinat was alone and would be alone in her marriage.
Dinner between Hamed, Zinat, and Saleleh:
This scene was boring, which matched how Zinat must have been feeling. Hamed comes home from work to the house that Zinat has been locked in all day. Zinat serves dinner for the three of them. Hamed says he is tired and talks a little about his day. Then they are silent. I wondered again why Hamed had wanted to marry an interesting, educated woman if he did not want to talk to her. But I also recognized the complicated dynamics of the third party. How could Zinat truly discuss her day or her emotions with her mother-in-law there? Marriage for Zinat was joining her husband’s family, different from starting a life with one other person. Like Sanglian in Raise the Red Lantern, Zinat must learn and follow the rules of the household she was given to. Sitting silently at dinner, she has no identity. Nothing is expected of her outside of fulfilling her responsibilities.
Looking at Hamed in the final scenes:
When we first meet Hamed, he is defiantly announcing that he will marry Zinat or know one at all. None of this strength and determinedness is present at the end of the film.
When Ashraf banged on the window and Hamed sent her away saying that Zinat was not a doctor, it echoed his mother’s behavior. Both Hamed and his mother were so desperate to hold onto their belief that Zinat should not work that they were willing to disregard the well being of a child. This was a clear moment that showed how the family unit was stronger than the larger community unit. This can also be seen in the layout of the houses, with an inner courtyard enabling life to be contained within the walls of the house.
It was clear with Hamed’s behavior in the room with Ashraf and her sick daughter that he was nervous being around a sick child and doubted Zinat’s abilities to be helpful. When the insertion of the straw is successful and Ashraf returns, Hamed proudly announces that her child is saved. He smiles broadly into the camera acknowledging his amazement at what Zinat has done, but they do not share a moment. It is significant that he gets on the truck at the end of the film, but I would have liked for him to reach out to her, touch her hand or her shoulder, a gesture to show that he sees her.
Revised ending:
Ashraf comes to the window and Hamad turns her away. Then she comes to the door and Saleleh is trying to turn away, while Zinat is concerned and pleads to go. Hamed take Zinat’s side against his mother. Zinat and Hamed the house together. At Ashraf’s Hamed stands while Zinat looks at the child and then ask her if there is anything she can do. Zinat explains the breathing problem and what she must do to Ashraf and Hamid. Ashraf is afraid, but Hamed reassures her. Zinat looks at him and he looks back. Then Ashraf and Hamid hold her child while Zinat makes the cut and inserts the straw. Zinat and Hamid leave Ashraf with her child and sit side by side on the steps. In the morning, they load the child onto the truck. Hamed jumps in. The camera angle changes and we see him from the back, several feet away we see his mother. He looks out at her, then reaches out his hand and looks down. Zinat places her hand in his. The camera angle changes and we see her from the back as Hamed is helping her into the truck. The truck begins to move as she settles in next to him.
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)