MOVIE MONDAY - IN THIS WORLD

“Where we love is home, home that our feet may leave, but not our hearts.” - Victor Hugo

To be forced to flee from one’s home and country for one or another reason must be one of the most traumatic experiences that one can live through. The life of a refugee is fraught with dangers, hardships, risks, an uncertain future and often of course, brevity - as death stalks the refugee on many fronts (I still remember with horror the 58 Chinese refugees who were found suffocated in a container in Dover). Throughout the world, the number of refugees is escalating and the reasons why they are forced to leave their homes are many and varied: Political persecution, religious intolerance, social problems, economic reasons, war, terrorism, famine, natural disasters…

A refugee is so-called because he or she is seeking refuge or asylum. Protection from the dangers that threaten their existence in their native lands and the chance to live a peaceful, safe existence. The 1951 United Nations Convention on the Status of Refugees defined a refugee as a person who “owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside the country of their nationality, and is unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail him/herself of the protection of that country.” This definition was expanded in 1967 to include “persons who had fled war or other violence in their home country”.

The U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants gives the current world total of refugees as approximately 12 million and estimates there are over 34 million displaced by war, including internally displaced persons, who remain within the same national borders. The majority of refugees who leave their country seek asylum in countries neighbouring their country of nationality.

This topic is dear to my heart as my family and I were forced to leave our homeland (Greece) in late 1969 and we had to come to live in Australia, because of political reasons. We were opposed to the military junta of Greece at the time, and as my parents were involved in anti-dictatorship activities it came to the point of risking capture and being jailed or fleeing. We were lucky to be accepted for immigration into Australia, with some fortunate and timely intervention by relatives and friends.

The film we watched last weekend struck a chord with me, even thought the circumstances of the refugees shown were different. The film is “In This World” (2002) and is directed by Michael Winterbottom. It is made in the style of a documentary, but although the story is inspired by actual events, it is a dramatised account. It is the story of two cousins, Enayat and Jamal, who are Afghan refugees. They live in a camp in Peshawar in Pakistan and try to escape to Great Britain using the help of people smugglers. Their dangerous journey leads them along the ancient “Silk Road” through Pakistan, Iran and Turkey towards London.

It is shot on DV and considering the medium, the cinematography is great, with some of the night shots in the mountains of border of Turkey, very dark, grainy and indistinct, creating a tension and atmosphere of fear that would have been difficult to portray with well-shot film.  The film does not politicise, nor does it preach. It is a fairly dispassionate account told without guile and one feels drawn into the plight of the characters, even though characterisation is minimal. On their odyssey, the two boys have to contend with border guards, police, thieves, smugglers, and numerous changes in currency and language. The vision of London is that of a paradise that beckons them and it is this dream-like Cockaigne that sustains them during their arduous trip. The film makes us identify with the main characters because it establishes very quickly their humanity, which we share.

The film, however, is making an important political statement. It forces us to take a stand in the end, forces us to take sides and have an opinion. How to deal with this world-wide problem, how to heal the social and political cancers in those countries that force their populations to flee? How to prevent exploitation of the weak and needy by the rich and powerful and how to prevent human tragedies from recurring? This is a powerful film, sad but oddly hopeful at the same time. Young Jamal reminded me of a stray seed carried by the wind and landing on a rocky infertile mountain. He battles with the elements in order to germinate and grow, but the adversity makes this young stunted plant strong and resistant to the unfavourable environment. What does not destroy him, makes him stronger…

MOVIE MONDAY - SERENADES

“Do not free a camel of the burden of his hump; you may be freeing him from being a camel.” - Gilbert K. Chesterton

Yesterday we watched an Australian film by Mojgan Ghadem, called “Serenades” (2001). It stars Alice Haines, Aden Young, Sinisa Copic, Bille Brown, David Gulpilil and Nick Lathouris. It is set in the late 1800s in the forbidding desert of Central Australia. At that time, camels imported from overseas were the major form of desert transport. To look after them and deal with the business of the transport, a host of Afghan cameleers also came to our shores. These men were used to the desert conditions and camel handling, so they were highly successful in running these camel caravans in the Outback. No women came with the Afghans and this created all sorts of social issues.

The film examines such an issue. On a Christian mission at the edge of the desert, an Afghan cameleer purchases a night with an Australian aboriginal woman by giving her father a pistol to pay for her favours. A girl is born of this one night encounter; a girl whose parents are an Aboriginal mother and an Afghan father. She grows to become a dark skinned, green eyed, beauty. This film is the story of Jila who walks on the razor’s edge of cultures and attempts to balance her life despite a great number of odds against her. She has to deal with conflicting religions, male domination, social stigmatisation and the awakening of love.

The cast do a wonderful job in portraying the emotions of the clashes between the cultures, particularly Alice Haines as Jila and Aden Young as Johann. It is a love story set in an anguished background. It is tenderly directed by Mojgan Khadem. In the words of the publicity for the film: “This is a story of Jila. Conceived against her mother’s will, born between two worlds, abandoned by love, cheated by death, removed from her faith and from her place. Given no choice, no say. All her life men decided how she would live, what she would dream, who she would worship, who she would marry. Yet no husband or lover could comprehend the depth of her passion. No Christian or Muslim could fathom her spirit. Only the landscape could give her comfort. Only the music could serenade her soul.”

The film is earnestly and sensitively made, although it does tend to look a little unpolished here and there. The story unfolds with facility, giving the viewer a great deal of satisfaction. One of the highlights for me was the beautiful music by Davood A. Tabrizi, which set the scene marvellously. If you have a chance, do try and see this film, which despite its shortcomings is a good one to watch.

MOVIE MONDAY - THE KITE RUNNER

“Friends show their love - in times of trouble, not in happiness” - Euripides

At the weekend we watched a film of a book we had read in the past, and about which I blogged. It is the novel “The Kite Runner” by Khaled Hosseini, who was born in 1965 in Kabul, the Afghani capital. His father was a diplomat with the Afghan Foreign Ministry and his mother taught Farsi and History at a large high school in Kabul. They relocated to Paris in 1976 but when they were ready to return to Kabul in 1980, Afghanistan had witnessed a bloody communist coup and the invasion of the Soviet army.

The 2007 Marc Forster movie “The Kite Runner” starring Khalid Abdalla, Ahmad Khan Mahmoodzada and Atossa Leoni is a good adaptation of the novel, with an excellent screenplay by David Benioff. The film has an authentic atmosphere and the recreation of Kabul before and after the Soviet invasion is convincing and compelling. Director Mark Forster wanted to make the film as authentic as possible and insisted on filming Afghani characters speaking in Dari (with English subtitles). Iran and Afghanistan share a language (called Farsi in Iran and Dari in Afghanistan – which is essentially the same language, but the accent is very different). The scenes shot in California are in English mainly.

The action of most of the film takes place in Afghanistan, with later scenes in the USA. In the 1970’s in Afghanistan, the Pashtun boy Amir and the Hazara boy Hassan, are friends. Hassan is the most loyal friend of the two, but Hassan is also the son of Amir’s Hazara servant Ali. The two boys are raised together in Amir’s father’s house, playing and flying kites competitively on the streets of a peaceful Kabul. Amir feels that his father blames him for the death of his mother during his birth, and also that his father loves and prefers Hassan to him. This is a misconception of Amir’s, as his father is fair and good-hearted. By contrast, Amir feels a great respect for his father's best friend Rahim Khan, who supports his intention to become a writer.

After Amir wins a competition of kite flying, Hassan runs to bring a kite to Amir, but he is beaten and raped by the brutal older boy, Assef. Amir witness the assault but does nothing to help the loyal Hassan. This episode convinces Amir that he must get rid of Hassan and on the day after his birthday party, Amir hides his new watch in Hassan’s bed to frame the boy as a thief and force his father to fire Ali. His plan is successful insofar as Ali resigns and leaves with Hassan, but Kabul is about to become a very different place, and Amir and his father must leave Afghanistan as refugees, fleeing to the USA. Amir’s life in California is upset when Rahim Khan makes a startling revelation and implores Amir to return to Afghanistan in order to make good former wrongs.

The film is acted extremely well and many of the Afghani players are not professional actors, but nevertheless act very well, giving the film authenticity and in parts an almost documentary-like feel. Although the film is mainly shot in China, Kabul is recreated realistically and the vivid descriptions in the novel have been transferred well to the screen. Although the 128 minutes of the film leave out details in the novel (which is inevitable), the film retains the immediacy and poignancy of the book, making for a very engaging and emotionally compelling movie.

The main theme of the film is Amir’s redemption. Amir as a child commits an act that is cowardly and atrocious, but as a man he redeems himself with courage and daring, putting his own life at risk in order to correct some of the errors of the past. Amir’s father who had his own demons to fight, did teach Amir how to behave honourably, and Amir’s matured character draws upon his father’s sense of justice and fairness in order to act with determination and bravery.

The film was quite controversial when it was released because of two reasons – one being a concern about the child actors and the possible psychological damage that may have been wrought during the making of the film and, two about the politics of Afghanistan and the repercussions that it may have had with the Taliban, who are depicted as soulless monsters in the film. The child actors are wonderful and the even the scene of violence depicted is done sensitively and handled with great aplomb by the director. In terms of the depiction of the Taliban, I think watching the news and seeing documentaries about Afghanistan is infinitely more shocking and gives an even more stark picture of the changes in this country over the last thirty years or so…

We recommend this film highly and of course if you can read the novel, it is well worth reading.

DISTANT WARS

“War may sometimes be a necessary evil. But no matter how necessary, it is always an evil, never a good. We will not learn how to live together in peace by killing each other’s children.”-  Jimmy Carter

I saw a middle-aged man on the train today, and he immediately attracted my attention for a number of reasons. One could immediately tell he was an ex-soldier from the medals he wore on his lapel, an RSL badge, and thrown in for good measure a red poppy – a relic from Anzac Day, no doubt. Although he wore a suit (which had seen better days), shirt and tie, he was still wearing his military boots. He was carrying a large bag, a rolled up display poster and a folding table. He was getting into the City early, and would be setting up a table to sell something or other for RSL fund-raising. His gaze more than anything was what transfixed me. An intense gaze and a serious countenance, eyes that were looking out, yet strangely unseeing. He stared straight ahead and his lined face was grave, while his calloused, gnarled hands that were holding onto his baggage firmly had obviously been through a lot.

The reports of more Australian soldiers being killed in foreign conflicts immediately came to mind. This man was one of those that had served and obviously survived. The row of medals on his coat indicated that this soldier had been through battle, had taken part in many missions, had killed, had seen some of his comrades injured, or perhaps worse. His presence on the morning commuter train was incongruous. However, the way that he looked out of his seemingly disciplined and imperturbable façade indicated that all was not well inside. There was a rawness of soul that still managed to seep through the chinks of his armour.

Whoever has seen active duty, has fought in a war, has confronted violence of that magnitude first hand is forever changed. I looked at his hands again and imagined them holding a gun, pulling the trigger, could see the bullet travelling with lightning speed through the air, finding its target with lethal accuracy. I could hear the repeated gunfire, the explosions, the shouts of the people, the cries of children. War is an ugly truth that we try and push out of our minds as much as we can. It is easy in countries like ours that are far removed from conflict and where we are able to live our cushy lives in pursuit of our self-indulgent goals whatever they may be. This ex-soldier’s presence on the commuter train jarred and forced people to acknowledge these foreign conflicts that Australia is involved in. I wasn’t the only one who had observed him…

News just in tell us of a decorated Australian commando on his fifth deployment to Afghanistan that has been shot dead in a firefight with insurgents. This is the eighth commando to die in the conflict and the 28th Australian soldier killed there since 2001. Sergeant Todd Langley, 35, from the Sydney-based 2nd Commando regiment, died from a gunshot wound to the head during the battle in southern Afghanistan on Monday. His death follows that of another decorated veteran commando, Sergeant Brett Wood, 32, killed by an improvised explosive device in May. He was on his third tour of Afghanistan.

We live in peaceful times in a country ostensibly at peace. We work, play, shop, pursue our pleasures, laugh and carry on with our lives, cosily insulated from adversity, civil unrest, conflict or all-out war in other parts of the world. Our media bombard us with inconsequential inane “news” about sports, celebrities, new products, fashion, food and entertainment while “feel-bad” news like war, disease, conflict, anti-government demonstrations are relegated to second place, something to mention as quickly as possible and immediately forget. The “serious” newspapers and magazines are obligated to carry more extensive articles on these “bad news” items, but there are big colourful advertisements right next to these, about luxury cars, watches, perfume, jewellery. Yes we acknowledge those “bad news” items, but we move on quickly to the glossy advertisements – much more appealing…

Here is such an item that fails to register in most people’s mind any more: “Twin suicide attacks ripped through the city of Taji north of Baghdad, killing at least 35 people, after Iraq suffered its deadliest month so far this year in June. Thirty-five people were killed and 28 injured when a car bomb and an improvised bomb exploded simultaneously outside a government office where national identification cards are issued, and the provincial council offices.” We glance at this and most people would not read further than the first sentence. “Iraq, bombs, death – what’s new?” the reader would ask and move on to something more engaging: Princely weddings perhaps, or the latest sexual escapades of some Hollywood celebrity…

I wonder what news the ex-soldier on the train is interested in? Is he one those who keeps up with what our troops are doing in foreign conflicts? Does he and his comrades get together and reminisce, comment on these latest news items, have a view, lobby politicians perhaps? Or maybe they would want to forget? Would they immerse themselves in the mundane inanity that whitewashes our attention daily in such an aggressive manner? The wearing of his medals and his fund-raising activities for the RSL would suggest to me that he would do the former. His presence behind his stall, the poster above him and the fund-raising merchandise on his portable table would be a reminder for the rest of us that somewhere on some battle front, an Australian soldier is pointing his gun across some expanse at some enemy. Someone’s son, brother, husband, uncle, cousin, boyfriend, colleague, mate is facing death daily. Someone who may become one of those pesky little news items that we glance at and move on from: “Australian soldier shot dead in a firefight with insurgents…”

The soldier got off one station before mine. A young man who was also getting out offered to help him with his baggage. The soldier looked surprised and turned half-smiling to the young man to thank him and politely refuse his help. “You’re a gentleman,” he said to him, “Not many people would be offering to help. I appreciate it, but I’m fine. I’ve been through worse…”

THE VEXED CASE OF JEREMY MORLOCK

“Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime.” - Ernest Hemingway

Have you heard of Jeremy Morlock? He is an unfortunate 22-year-old American soldier who was found guilty in a court martial on the 23rd of March 2011, for his reprehensible actions while part of a “rogue killing squad” that murdered unarmed Afghan men between January and May in 2010 in Afghanistan. He was sentenced to 24 years in gaol The judge, Lt Col Kwasi Hawks, said he had intended to sentence Morlock to life in prison with the possibility of parole but had been bound by a plea bargain under which Morlock would be sentenced to a maximum of 24 years in prison in return for testifying against his comrades.

Morlock pleaded guilty to three counts of murder and one count each of illegal drug use, conspiracy and obstructing justice. He told the court that the killings were planned in late 2009, and that he and his comrades had conspired to plant weapons on the corpses to make the killings appear justified. Morlock admitted that he and his fellow-soldiers were killing people who were completely innocent. He said the murder plot was led by the unit’s leader, Staff Sgt Calvin Gibbs, who is also charged in the killings but who maintained the killings were justified.

These proceedings came two days after German magazine “Der Spiegel” published photographs showing US soldiers grinning over the corpses of Afghan civilians they had allegedly killed. In addition to Staff Sgt Gibbs, charged in the murders are Pte First Class Andrew Holmes, Spc Michael Wagnon and Spc Adam Winfield. Other soldiers are accused of dismembering the victims and collecting body parts in a grisly trophy hunt. The photos published by Der Spiegel were said to be among many seized by US Army investigators.

Morlock perhaps was typical of his generation, being brought up in uncertain times and having few options in terms of a job or prospects, given his underachieving school career. He was originally from Wasilla, Alaska, and he enlisted in 2006 after stopping his high school studies at 19 years of age. When he was training in boot camp, he was homesick and often became depressed. His condition deteriorated after his father’s death by drowning in 2007.

Two years later, while on combat duty in Afghanistan he suffered a concussion. There are letters to his mother, which indicate that he was not sleeping well and may have been traumatised. He was prescribed over ten different medications (including painkillers, anti-depressants, and sleeping pills), so the medical doctors treating him knew that something was seriously wrong. The big question at this stage is where is the duty of care shown to their patient by these doctors? Why wasn’t he sent home as he should have so that he could recover? He needed his family, and close to his mother he could perhaps have overcome his father’s death and put back together the broken pieces of his life.

Instead, Morlock stayed on in Afghanistan and began to become habituated to the local hashish, diagnosed by his doctors as cannabis dependence, PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder), post-concussive disorder, and a slew of other psychological disturbances. The soldier was still not sent home and he continued to serve actively in combat duty. Is it surprising that this young man with a multitude of psychological problems, heavily medicated and addicted to cannabis became involved in the plot to kill Afghan innocent civilians?

Who is the real guilty party here? Morlock or his doctors? Morlock or his military leaders? Morlock or the government that sent him thousands of kilometres away from home to fight an invisible and ever elusive enemy? Morlock’s brief was to kill terrorists and enemies of democracy. In the dark every cat is gray. In Morlock’s blackest hour is it surprising that every turban-wearing Afghan became a terrorist threat and easily accessible target to shoot at? In his hashish-addled mind was it so difficult to transform the heinous acts he was committing to glorious and heroic deeds? Perhaps he was a sad victim of circumstances, a pitiful casualty of the bewildering war he was sent to fight. Morlock committed acts of extreme barbarity and inhuman savagery. As a society we condemned him as we would a rational human being that committed these acts in full possession of his faculties. But was this a sane, rational man who possessed his faculties and thought through his actions?

The judges thought he was. Morlock admitted that he was aware that he and his comrades-in-arms were shooting innocent civilians. The brutality of the callous acts was magnified when every detail of the slaying was immortalised on video and film and the savage cries of triumph were recorded for posterity. In their minds, these soldiers were on a holy mission for their country, for democracy and freedom, fighting against terrorism and communism and everything un-American. The results of their actions were that some poor innocent Afghan wretches did not return to their family that night and their wives and children had to weep over their bloody and mutilated bodies.

What society can look at its actions and forgive itself the wrongs that it meted out to Morlock and his comrades? What society can forgive itself for the killings perpetrated by Morlock and every other soldier like Morlock on a phantom battlefield, fighting ghostly enemies, jousting at windmills because they viewed them as ogres? What society can forgive itself when it commits these acts of barbarity in the name of freedom and democracy? By what strange delusion can such a society masquerade cruel and calculated acts that serve its economy as idealistic and kind acts of liberation? The answer is the same society that absolves itself by sacrificing scapegoats like Morlock. The same society that creates monsters in order to send out posses to destroy them in self-righteous rage…