Terrorism films (VI): 'Paradise Now'

Posted By Thomas E. Ricks Tuesday, January 12, 2010 - 4:16 PM Share

I was surprised at how much I liked Paradise Now, the latest in our terrorism film festival. It had an interesting vibe, different from most terrorism films, with a surprisingly relaxed mode of storytelling. It kind of sneaks up on you.

The film is controversial, of course -- you couldn't make a film on this subject without being so. The "danger" is that one humanizes suicide bombers. But as my wife the saint points out, they are humans, so the question is: Why do humans do this? I think the film achieves its director's aim of being a work of art rather than a political statement.

Interestingly, the director has said that "I wouldn't do it again." He explained, "It's not worth endangering your life for a movie."

Meanwhile, the Iranian government is pissed at the Palestinian Authority for playing footsie with the Muj-e-Khalq. A foreign ministry guy in Tehran says, "MKO has been recognized as a terrorist group at international scene and the move accounted for new phase of cooperation with the group."

And Turkey's PM is dissing Israel.

Can't we all just get along?

EXPLORE:ISRAEL/PALESTINE, TERRORISM

(4)

HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE

STEVEN THOMAS SMITH

6:21 PM ET

January 12, 2010

Tom, you can't post on

Tom, you can't post on Paradise Now and not tell us how you (or your wife) resolve the ending. Obvious? Ambiguous? Why? Discussing this does not spoil the film, as it's the character development leading to this ending that makes the film worthwhile.

As for controversial films that humanize terrorists, you can't do better than D. W. Griffith's Birth of a Nation featuring scenes like this one showing Gus's "just trial" after which he is castrated, hung, and dumped on the steps of the Lt. Governor Silas "Lynch"'s house ("the answer to the blacks and carpetbaggers"). The entire 2d half of the film is a glorification of terrorism as a political strategy. Griffiths: "The Ku Klux Klan, the organization that saved the South from the anarchy of black rule, but not without the shedding of more blood than at Gettysburg."

The ynet article you link does a decent job explaining one side of the controversy about Paradise Now, but a "quality Nazi film"? Really? Compare to D. W. Griffith's Clansmen, whose violent actions against elected blacks are explained with the text:

The former enemies of North and South are united again in common defence of their Aryan birthright.

Birth is also highly topical because it goes a long way explaining the source of the teabagger's opposition to Obama and calls for violence against the President. The whole film is available online here at the internet archive. It's also just a great film to watch.

As for other very controversial films on terrorism, no one has yet mentioned The Power of Nightmares, a BBC film documentary on recent history that will probably never air in the U.S. and is certain to provoke nearly everyone. You can also get it online at the internet archive. Whether or not you agree with it, it's well made and funny with a high Tomatometer score.

TOM RICKS

8:50 PM ET

January 12, 2010

Not ambiguious at all

I didn't find the ending ambigious at all. A soundless white flash is what a bomb feels like. First the screen goes white, then it goes black.
Best,
tom

RZAMETH99

7:01 PM ET

January 12, 2010

Todd

Does anyone know the name of the son in the trailer, the acoustic song towards the end, if so can you respond please. Great work Tom.

JBROWN27

5:25 AM ET

January 14, 2010

(Josh)

I watched "Paradise Now" a few months ago, and I enjoyed it. Though I think the trailer was too misleading...

Anyway, that's a film that I believe was (mostly) worth risking daily bombing, mortars, and the kidnapping of a crew-member (a.k.a. Palestine) to make, terrible as that sounds. It's not profoundly deep, but it does explore the psychology of terrorism, and puts a human face and human story to it, which was something unheard of in 2005, and so it was groundbreaking.