Wednesday, January 8, 2014

Omar

Hany Abu-Assad’s Omar is the Palestinian take on the Israeli Intelligence game that Bethlehem (see separate blog) presented from the Israeli side. It’s an extremely effective and well-made film, that further engages its audience with a Romeo and Juliet story of romance thwarted by politics. That’s the box office sugar that may have won the Foreign Film Oscar finals slot.
  The film centers on three young men itching to join the battle. The leader is Tarek, the hero Omar and the comic butt is the least attractive, Amjad. Omar and Tarek’s sister Nadia are in love, as is evident from their glances when she early serves all three men tea. At her insistence, Amjad does his Godfather impersonation for her, amusing at the time but in hindsight a sinister omen. 
For Amjad will prove the film’s bad actor, or villain. Though he’s the best shot, he tries to avoid doing his part in the trio’s planned attack on an Israeli guard. He eventually does pull the fatal trigger, but the Israelis believe Tarek should be assumed guilty. When they arrest only Omar, they torture him and force him to help them catch Tarek. 
Amjad is doubly the villain when he claims he made Nadia pregnant. In the boys’ scuffle the enraged Tarek is killed. The disillusioned Omar lets Nadia marry Amjad.
Though Omar’s early release from arrest feeds suspicion he is the Israeli agent’s collaborator, again the true villain has been Amjad. 
The film’s political bias begins with the harsh wall Omar has to scale to get to Nadia and back home. The physical separation of the lovers has no other function than to show the controversial wall and generate the instant anger it arouses. The wall can be read as the obstacle Israel has forced upon Palestinian normalcy, but that ignores the security reasons which necessitated it (i.e., the terrorist/freedom fighters bombing Israel cafes and other civilian gatherings). Typical of Palestinian propaganda, the causes of Israel's response are framed out. 
The torture scenes are also inflammatory. Omar’s torture to extract information is most disturbing, even given that he was involved in the fatal attack. But his more arbitrary stop earlier, after climbing the wall, is — though less violent — an equally troubling charge of Israel’s bullying and incendiary abuse. 
Then there is the film’s final twist. Spoiler alert. We’re led to believe Omar wants to kill Amjad whose lies ruined Nadia’s and Omar’s romance. He arranges to get a gun from his Israeli handler, who arrives with armed bodyguards. As the handler shows Omar how to use the pistol Omar turns and kills him. Black screen.
As Omar is doubtless shot on the spot, his act is equivalent to a suicide bombing. Our valorous hero is giving up his life to take one Israeli’s, albeit the man who has manipulated and abused him. Moreover, he is forgoing avenging Amjad’s betrayal to kill an Israeli instead. The implication is that whatever differences may separate Palestinians, they should be set aside to attack their common enemy. Although the film eschews extremist rhetoric like “Kill the Jews” its narrative sets up that uncompromising thrust. 
      If one function of art is to improve our chances of living well, of becoming humans of broader understanding, compassion and purpose, then a work that uncritically valorizes a murderous suicide and that only confirms inherited hatreds and misunderstandings might be said to fall short. Bethlehem stands a more circumspect and principled work --  which may explain the Academy's aversion.


No comments: