My wife and I watched The Kite Runner the other night, the last DVD in a multi-movie and Guitar Hero '80s weekend. We didn't begin watching until late, around midnight. My hopes on staying awake throughout the length of the movie were pretty low. Once the movie began, however, we were riveted throughout the entire 2-hr length.
Amir and Hassan are friends; two young boys growing up in the same house in the time prior to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Flying kites is their one of the their major enjoyments together. Amir flies the kites, taking Hassan's advice. When Amir cuts the line of a competing kite, Hassan becomes the Kite Runner, having an innate gift to track the defeated kite as it descends toward the winding streets and alleyways of Kabul, Afghanistan. Amir is also a noted storyteller for his age, able to craft words and passages that entertain children and adults alike. His father does not think much of this ability, prefering Hassan's ruggedness and masculinity, noting that Hassan tends to defend Amir in fights, although Hassan is quite smaller than Amir.
Amir and Hassan seem inseparable as friends, though one thing does separate them: race. Amir is Pashtun, the preferred people of Afghanistan. Amir's father is very wealthy, driving a replica of Steve McQueen's Mustang around the streets of Kabul. Hassan is a second-class citizen, barely tolerable by most Pashtuns, as he is Hazara. The story takes a violent turn as a result of this racial divide, and the friendship between the two boys is never the same. Soon after, the Soviets invade and occupy Afghanistan, forcing Amir and his father to flee, leaving Hassan and his father behind.
Leap forward to 2000, and Amir is living in Fremont, California, still intractably tied to the Afghani-Pashtun culture. A phone call one night forces him to revisit the ghosts of his past, and he embarks on a journey back into the heart of his homeland, no longer ruled by the Soviets, but by the Taliban.
I flew kites as a kid. My dad put together a World-War I byplane kite, which we flew once. We crashed it, breaking it, but not seriously. It then hung from my bedroom ceiling for years. Kites take on a whole new meaning in this movie and prove to be an calming counter-point to the serious themes permeating the movie.
Events in the movie take place in Fremont, California, the portions that are set in Kabul, Afghanistan were shot in Kashgar, Tashgarkan, and in the Pamir Mountains - all of which are in western China.
The Taliban are also portrayed, accurately, at least superficially so. From the street hangings, the bearded gunmen, women wearing the chadri, the full-length blue burqa, to the atrocities committed at Ghazni (Ghazi) Stadium.
Inspired as it is from true events, Kite Runner is a work of fiction. We can achieve some insight into culture, wealth, trust, and honor, through this story: the wealthy and elite in Afghanistan, moderate Islam versus radical Islam, racism, and the radical rule of the Taliban.
Rent it; it might be one of the best 2hrs you have spent in front of your television in a long time.
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
A Country Called Europe
I like this title better than the original title, "It's the end of Britain as we know it". My title is not accurate, but neither is CSM's. However, we are both heading in the same direction.
The European Union is growing closer to becoming "a country" by my estimates. Europe has been evolving towards a "union" since 1950, when the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC)was established. Later, in 1957, the Treaty of Rome would create the European Economic Community, otherwise known as the Common Market.
In 1973, an additional three countries would join the original six charter members of the ECSC. The ECSC would then become known as the European Union. Greece, Spain, and Portugal would soon follow.
I don't mean to provide a chronology here, and I am not going to. For these countries to cooperate serves all European countries. The issues that stand before them are numerous. The reality is that for each country to thrive, each must recognize interdependence on the others. How does a country then thrive in the face of differences? So many languages, different religions, different economic cultures and climates and stages or levels of development.
The European Union seeks to provide such a structure, to encourage growth, yet maintain fair and equitable practices across a diverse region.
In essence, it is almost as if a Federal Republic is evolving across Europe. Each province, e.g. Germany, is has autonomy to conduct business, have local elections, etc., but must adhere to EU business rules in the process. Very analogous to our Federal system: our U.S. states are analogs to EU countries. Our states have given sovereignty over to our Federal government, in terms of defense, monetary policy, etc.
In many ways, Europe has been set forth as the 'grand old man' of the world. In regards to the EU, the United States has appearred to have been at the forefront.
The European Union is growing closer to becoming "a country" by my estimates. Europe has been evolving towards a "union" since 1950, when the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC)was established. Later, in 1957, the Treaty of Rome would create the European Economic Community, otherwise known as the Common Market.
In 1973, an additional three countries would join the original six charter members of the ECSC. The ECSC would then become known as the European Union. Greece, Spain, and Portugal would soon follow.
I don't mean to provide a chronology here, and I am not going to. For these countries to cooperate serves all European countries. The issues that stand before them are numerous. The reality is that for each country to thrive, each must recognize interdependence on the others. How does a country then thrive in the face of differences? So many languages, different religions, different economic cultures and climates and stages or levels of development.
The European Union seeks to provide such a structure, to encourage growth, yet maintain fair and equitable practices across a diverse region.
In essence, it is almost as if a Federal Republic is evolving across Europe. Each province, e.g. Germany, is has autonomy to conduct business, have local elections, etc., but must adhere to EU business rules in the process. Very analogous to our Federal system: our U.S. states are analogs to EU countries. Our states have given sovereignty over to our Federal government, in terms of defense, monetary policy, etc.
In many ways, Europe has been set forth as the 'grand old man' of the world. In regards to the EU, the United States has appearred to have been at the forefront.
Thursday, March 06, 2008
Iraq and Iran: Together for the First Time
Folks, I see this as a big deal. I have read numerous international articles, within the Arab world and without, and I see this as a concern.
Iraq and Iran spent the better part of the 1980's fighting over the Shatt al-Arab waterway in the southern part of Iraq. Oil, of course, was the contention.
Saddam became the buddy of the United States, as a way for us to conduct a proxy war against Iran. After all, the fundamentalist Shi'ites in Iran had just overrun our embassy and taken hostages, keeping them for almost a year. Donald Rumsfeld even took it upon himself to engage Saddam directly during this time, helping deliver non-military assistance, agriculture products supposedly. Supposedly, these where then converted over to chemical weapons that Saddam used to kill 200,000 Kurds in the northern part of Iraq.
The U.S. has not been friendly with Iran ever since we supported the overthrow of the theocratic government in 1952, replacing the president with Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran. The former government had nationalized the oil industry, taking away the investment that a U.S. oil company had made.
The Iranian President enjoyed two days in Iraq. He announced his visit weeks in advance. While security was high, he appeared to travel with impunity and without much regard for his personal safety. He also appeared to enjoy the personal attention of Jalal Talabani and al-Maliki. He visited several places around Baghdad and Iraq, and also received accommodations outside the Green Zone. President Ahmadinejad enjoys the support of the Shia minority in Iraq, the southern portion of Iraq. Iran supported the Kurds during Iran-Iraq War so the Kurds also appreciated Iran's attention. The only ones that seemed upset were the Iraqi Sunni Muslims, who are quietly backed by Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
In contrast, President Bush has stayed little more that 4-8 hours at a stretch in Iraq, has not been outside the Green Zone, and only announces his visit after the fact. Granted, he is a bigger "trophy" for opposition forces so requires more security, but it also says a lot about how the U.S. currently viewed, as well.
When all was said and done, Iraq and Iran signed agreements to improve and promote cooperation, cultural and strategic ties.
Iran is, and will continue to be, an important player in stabilizing Iraq, particularly for the Shia.
Iraq and Iran spent the better part of the 1980's fighting over the Shatt al-Arab waterway in the southern part of Iraq. Oil, of course, was the contention.
Saddam became the buddy of the United States, as a way for us to conduct a proxy war against Iran. After all, the fundamentalist Shi'ites in Iran had just overrun our embassy and taken hostages, keeping them for almost a year. Donald Rumsfeld even took it upon himself to engage Saddam directly during this time, helping deliver non-military assistance, agriculture products supposedly. Supposedly, these where then converted over to chemical weapons that Saddam used to kill 200,000 Kurds in the northern part of Iraq.
The U.S. has not been friendly with Iran ever since we supported the overthrow of the theocratic government in 1952, replacing the president with Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran. The former government had nationalized the oil industry, taking away the investment that a U.S. oil company had made.
The Iranian President enjoyed two days in Iraq. He announced his visit weeks in advance. While security was high, he appeared to travel with impunity and without much regard for his personal safety. He also appeared to enjoy the personal attention of Jalal Talabani and al-Maliki. He visited several places around Baghdad and Iraq, and also received accommodations outside the Green Zone. President Ahmadinejad enjoys the support of the Shia minority in Iraq, the southern portion of Iraq. Iran supported the Kurds during Iran-Iraq War so the Kurds also appreciated Iran's attention. The only ones that seemed upset were the Iraqi Sunni Muslims, who are quietly backed by Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
In contrast, President Bush has stayed little more that 4-8 hours at a stretch in Iraq, has not been outside the Green Zone, and only announces his visit after the fact. Granted, he is a bigger "trophy" for opposition forces so requires more security, but it also says a lot about how the U.S. currently viewed, as well.
When all was said and done, Iraq and Iran signed agreements to improve and promote cooperation, cultural and strategic ties.
Iran is, and will continue to be, an important player in stabilizing Iraq, particularly for the Shia.
Space Imperialism on the Horizon
An article in Christian Science Monitor pulls together details from multiple sources, outlining China's apparent interest in militarizing outer space.
On or about January 19th, China destroyed one of its own satellites. Military experts view this as the beginnings of militarizing space. Once a country has the ability to shoot down satellites, then the ability of collecting surveillance on that country is diminished. So, one can understand the DoD's concern.
At issue is air space and the concept of territoriality. A country's boundaries extend into the sky, "airspace," and into the ocean depths, "territorial waters." But what about space?
The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 bans the use of space and celestial objects for military purposes. Thusly, none of the signatories can orbit missile platforms or conduct military operations in space, on the moon, Mars, Pluto, etc.
The treaty does not cover shooting down satellites from earth, however.
So much for Science Fiction battles ...
On or about January 19th, China destroyed one of its own satellites. Military experts view this as the beginnings of militarizing space. Once a country has the ability to shoot down satellites, then the ability of collecting surveillance on that country is diminished. So, one can understand the DoD's concern.
At issue is air space and the concept of territoriality. A country's boundaries extend into the sky, "airspace," and into the ocean depths, "territorial waters." But what about space?
The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 bans the use of space and celestial objects for military purposes. Thusly, none of the signatories can orbit missile platforms or conduct military operations in space, on the moon, Mars, Pluto, etc.
The treaty does not cover shooting down satellites from earth, however.
So much for Science Fiction battles ...
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Movie Review: God Grew Tired Of Us
Sudan. If you haven't heard of Sudan by now then you aren't reading this, haven't used the Internet, and are probably a good candidate for a real-life version of "Lost."
Currently, the world is applying pressure on China to affect change and prevent more tragedy in Darfur. But Darfur is in the western part of Sudan. The southern part of Sudan has fallen off of most people's radar.
From the early 1980s through 2005, the southern part of Sudan was involved in a civil war with northern Sudan. I may need to amend that - the North was at war with the South. The South contains the oil, which the Chinese want, also better soils, which the southern Sudanese want and the northern Sudanese wish they had. Complicating the conflict has been religious differences; the North is Muslim, the South is Christian and Animists. The North is mostly Arab, too, while the South is African.
During the two-decade long civil war, the North killed, captured, or ran off thousands of southern Sudanese men and boys, who fled to Ethiopia and later to Kenya. Fathers, husbands, brothers, and uncles were forced from the lands or killed by the northern armies. Those young men and boys that fled, on foot, through dangerous territory, would be called the "Lost Boys of Sudan." They would become separated from their families and many, even to this day, have not yet been reunited with family members. Families were broken apart; mothers, daughters and sisters were killed, some fled and became refugees in neighboring countries. Thousands ended up in refugee camps, and from these camps, choice few were selected for lives in the U.S.
The movie follows four Sudanese Lost Boys, primarily John Bul Dau, and their new lives in the U.S. We learn about their lives while in the refugee camp and glimpse life within one of these camps. We see their introduction to technology, listen to their notions of what life in the U.S. must be like. Seeing these young men and their interaction with airline food and bathrooms is interesting, like watching full-grown children, as everything is so new and different. While interesting, much of this I found disturbing.
We, as Americans, take so much for granted. Something so simple as looking into a mirror that each of us do a dozen times a day is captivating and mesmerizing to the young men. Seeing themselves in the mirror at the airport bathroom maybe the first time each had this experience. I was stunned by that. Later, I was stunned again by the lack of counseling these men went through to assist them in managing such culture shock. No mentors, outside of the first day walk-through of their apartment. They were quickly introduced to trashcans, the refrigerator, the toilet and toilet paper, and potato chips. And then left on their own. Strange land, strange country.
They also get to pay back their airfare, after having to work two or three jobs. Loneliness also haunts them. Their "families," other Sudanese Lost Boys in a refugee camp in Kenya, are half a world away. The people here, in Buffalo, NY, are unfriendly, not talkative, "you can't just walk into someone's house and talk." In the camp, one is surrounded by friends who have been through the same experience, and through the Grace of God, a few get an opportunity to succeed in the U.S.
The film is very eye-opening and poignant, and covers many positives, such as John reuniting with his mother after 17yrs, and working towards bettering the lifes not only of other Sudanese living the U.S. but also advocating for those still living in refugee camps in Kenya. But I couldn't help but think that all Sudanese would much rather have their lives back, and live in their Sudanese homeland, rather than live life abroad.
Currently, the world is applying pressure on China to affect change and prevent more tragedy in Darfur. But Darfur is in the western part of Sudan. The southern part of Sudan has fallen off of most people's radar.
From the early 1980s through 2005, the southern part of Sudan was involved in a civil war with northern Sudan. I may need to amend that - the North was at war with the South. The South contains the oil, which the Chinese want, also better soils, which the southern Sudanese want and the northern Sudanese wish they had. Complicating the conflict has been religious differences; the North is Muslim, the South is Christian and Animists. The North is mostly Arab, too, while the South is African.
During the two-decade long civil war, the North killed, captured, or ran off thousands of southern Sudanese men and boys, who fled to Ethiopia and later to Kenya. Fathers, husbands, brothers, and uncles were forced from the lands or killed by the northern armies. Those young men and boys that fled, on foot, through dangerous territory, would be called the "Lost Boys of Sudan." They would become separated from their families and many, even to this day, have not yet been reunited with family members. Families were broken apart; mothers, daughters and sisters were killed, some fled and became refugees in neighboring countries. Thousands ended up in refugee camps, and from these camps, choice few were selected for lives in the U.S.
The movie follows four Sudanese Lost Boys, primarily John Bul Dau, and their new lives in the U.S. We learn about their lives while in the refugee camp and glimpse life within one of these camps. We see their introduction to technology, listen to their notions of what life in the U.S. must be like. Seeing these young men and their interaction with airline food and bathrooms is interesting, like watching full-grown children, as everything is so new and different. While interesting, much of this I found disturbing.
We, as Americans, take so much for granted. Something so simple as looking into a mirror that each of us do a dozen times a day is captivating and mesmerizing to the young men. Seeing themselves in the mirror at the airport bathroom maybe the first time each had this experience. I was stunned by that. Later, I was stunned again by the lack of counseling these men went through to assist them in managing such culture shock. No mentors, outside of the first day walk-through of their apartment. They were quickly introduced to trashcans, the refrigerator, the toilet and toilet paper, and potato chips. And then left on their own. Strange land, strange country.
They also get to pay back their airfare, after having to work two or three jobs. Loneliness also haunts them. Their "families," other Sudanese Lost Boys in a refugee camp in Kenya, are half a world away. The people here, in Buffalo, NY, are unfriendly, not talkative, "you can't just walk into someone's house and talk." In the camp, one is surrounded by friends who have been through the same experience, and through the Grace of God, a few get an opportunity to succeed in the U.S.
The film is very eye-opening and poignant, and covers many positives, such as John reuniting with his mother after 17yrs, and working towards bettering the lifes not only of other Sudanese living the U.S. but also advocating for those still living in refugee camps in Kenya. But I couldn't help but think that all Sudanese would much rather have their lives back, and live in their Sudanese homeland, rather than live life abroad.
Movie Review: In the Valley of Elah
About 70% of a human brain is water. The human brain has a consistency not unlike that of a firm jello. A recent Washington Post article cites research that ties concussions to PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder). The question you may be thinking is: what does a jello-like brain and PTSD have to do with "In the Valley of Elah"?
Tommy Lee Jones portrays a father, Hank Deerfield, searching for his son, Mike, who has gone AWOL soon after his return from a tour of duty in Iraq. Jones' character is also a former MP and knows the Army bureaucracy well enough to know that he has to push through it to get answers. Charlize Theron portrays a local police detective assisting him in his search.
**Spoilers Ho'***
We soon find out that Mike is dead, and not just dead, but butchered and barbequed. Rather than hoping his son is AWOL trying to work through the stress of battle, Hank finds himself at odds with the Army in trying to discover his son's murderers.
What we learn throughout the course of the movie is that ordinary people forced to make extraordinary decisions can seem outwardly fine but have undergone serious emotional damage. I begin the discussion by introducing the brain material because we are only now beginning to realize the damage done to the brain by explosions and concussive-type damage. Soldiers subjected to concussive forces as a result of IED explosions, mortar attacks, of even firing their own weapons are at risk or may have already suffered some brain damage.
The damage to their brains will most likely go unrecognized and thusly undiagnosed. Then, the soldiers walk among us with undiagnosed brain injuries. Of course, not all are dangerous, but many are "wounded," psychologically and perhaps even physiologically wounded. Couple this with the fact that these are young men and women whose brains are really still developing, and we have a serious medical condition that left untreated could affect not only the soldiers life for years to come but everyone they come into contact with.
The movie was very good, thought-provoking, and hints at the dangers of war that shadow everyone who has been involved in the military.
Tommy Lee Jones portrays a father, Hank Deerfield, searching for his son, Mike, who has gone AWOL soon after his return from a tour of duty in Iraq. Jones' character is also a former MP and knows the Army bureaucracy well enough to know that he has to push through it to get answers. Charlize Theron portrays a local police detective assisting him in his search.
**Spoilers Ho'***
We soon find out that Mike is dead, and not just dead, but butchered and barbequed. Rather than hoping his son is AWOL trying to work through the stress of battle, Hank finds himself at odds with the Army in trying to discover his son's murderers.
What we learn throughout the course of the movie is that ordinary people forced to make extraordinary decisions can seem outwardly fine but have undergone serious emotional damage. I begin the discussion by introducing the brain material because we are only now beginning to realize the damage done to the brain by explosions and concussive-type damage. Soldiers subjected to concussive forces as a result of IED explosions, mortar attacks, of even firing their own weapons are at risk or may have already suffered some brain damage.
The damage to their brains will most likely go unrecognized and thusly undiagnosed. Then, the soldiers walk among us with undiagnosed brain injuries. Of course, not all are dangerous, but many are "wounded," psychologically and perhaps even physiologically wounded. Couple this with the fact that these are young men and women whose brains are really still developing, and we have a serious medical condition that left untreated could affect not only the soldiers life for years to come but everyone they come into contact with.
The movie was very good, thought-provoking, and hints at the dangers of war that shadow everyone who has been involved in the military.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Life Imitates Art: Wishful Thinking
The Independent Republic of Kosovo was born yesterday, much to the chagrin of the Bosnian Serbs. There is great consternation and rage directed towards the new-found republic and religious homeland for the Bosnian Serb Christians.
In fact, so many Bosnian Serbs are outraged at the audacitiy of Muslim Kosovars to declare their independence that they are looking to their heros to help them regain their core region. Cries for Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadzic are heard openly in the streets and in the papers.
Of course, these "heros" have been identified as war criminals by The Hague, and are on the lam from international police agencies, despite living open lives in Serbian strongholds. Ratko Mladic's visage may be seen on political posters in Macedonia.
On the eve of Kosovo's independence, my wife and I watched the movie, The Hunting Party. The movie came highly recommended by the manager of Video Gold; he and I trade opinions on politically-charged movies from time-to-time. The Hunting Party is loosely based on the real-life story of Scott Anderson and four other intrepid journalists, one of whom is Sebastian Junger, who become confused with a CIA hit squad. The group sets out to "interview" Radovan Karadzic but the endeavor quickly escalates to bringing him to justice.
The movie significantly deviates from the truth, however. In the real effort, five journalists set out to capture Radovan, while in the movie five becomes three. And - spoiler coming - the movie three end up capturing Radovan, while in real-life the five never capture Radovan. Radovan is still living in Serbia, or perhaps Russia by some accounts. His pal, Ratko, is still living in Serbia, protected by the Serbian army.
What the movie appears to have accurately portrayed is the apparent incongruence on the part of the international community in their interest in finding these individuals. Yes, they have warrants out for their arrest. Police and law enforcement officials seemingly know the location of said individuals. Their efforts at apprehension are bumbling, at best, noted by the attempted arrest of Radovan at church that left a clergyman and his son wounded. All true is the advertisement in a Serbian paper, asking anyone with information on the whereabouts of either of the two men to call an 800 number. The 800 number was only accessible to callers from inside the U.S. When asked about the possibility that this blunder could have been deliberate, S. Anderson provides this comment:
If only life did imitate art, on occasion, particularly the way the movie Radovan received his just desserts.
In fact, so many Bosnian Serbs are outraged at the audacitiy of Muslim Kosovars to declare their independence that they are looking to their heros to help them regain their core region. Cries for Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadzic are heard openly in the streets and in the papers.
Of course, these "heros" have been identified as war criminals by The Hague, and are on the lam from international police agencies, despite living open lives in Serbian strongholds. Ratko Mladic's visage may be seen on political posters in Macedonia.
On the eve of Kosovo's independence, my wife and I watched the movie, The Hunting Party. The movie came highly recommended by the manager of Video Gold; he and I trade opinions on politically-charged movies from time-to-time. The Hunting Party is loosely based on the real-life story of Scott Anderson and four other intrepid journalists, one of whom is Sebastian Junger, who become confused with a CIA hit squad. The group sets out to "interview" Radovan Karadzic but the endeavor quickly escalates to bringing him to justice.
The movie significantly deviates from the truth, however. In the real effort, five journalists set out to capture Radovan, while in the movie five becomes three. And - spoiler coming - the movie three end up capturing Radovan, while in real-life the five never capture Radovan. Radovan is still living in Serbia, or perhaps Russia by some accounts. His pal, Ratko, is still living in Serbia, protected by the Serbian army.
What the movie appears to have accurately portrayed is the apparent incongruence on the part of the international community in their interest in finding these individuals. Yes, they have warrants out for their arrest. Police and law enforcement officials seemingly know the location of said individuals. Their efforts at apprehension are bumbling, at best, noted by the attempted arrest of Radovan at church that left a clergyman and his son wounded. All true is the advertisement in a Serbian paper, asking anyone with information on the whereabouts of either of the two men to call an 800 number. The 800 number was only accessible to callers from inside the U.S. When asked about the possibility that this blunder could have been deliberate, S. Anderson provides this comment:
"You hear this kind of conspiracy-theory crap about the United States from European journalists all the time. As the only one at the table who'd actually worked for the American government--years ago and briefly--I assured Philippe that Washington was actually capable of far greater idiocy." (Scott Anderson, 2001)Rather than run up against copyright infringement I have posted a link to the original article, 'What I Did on My Summer Vacation' via the Finding Karadzic blog. Watch the video, then read the article; or vice-versa. One cannot help but note the Hollywood embellishment. And that is the most frustrating:
If only life did imitate art, on occasion, particularly the way the movie Radovan received his just desserts.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Movie Review: The Kingdom
I wish I knew how objectionable Muslims and Arabs found "The Kingdom" after viewing the movie. An interesting discussion took place on Rasheed's World blog, between Rasheed and Fedo the Space Cowboy that I recommend reading.
The movie really revolves around Saudi culture, and the obstacles the FBI faces when trying to discover the perpetrators behind an attack and subsequent suicide bombing of an oil company employees compound, near Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The relationship between Al-Ghazi, the Saudi police officer and the FBI crew was interesting to watch. The character of Al-Ghazi was portrayed by Ashraf Barhoum, who is a Christian Arab-Israeli. He, unto himself, is a geographic conundrum.
It is my perception that many American believe that there are two cultures that inhabit Israel. The first culture, the Jews, are perceived as Europeans that were given a part of Palestine in 1947. The second culture, the Palestinians, are perceived as Muslim Arabs, who are also percieved as having part of Palestine taken away from them, as it didn't really belong to them anyway.
The truth is more complicated, and the truth is somewhat evident in Ashraf Barhoum, an Israeli, and an Arab, and a Christian. That is how complicated Israel is. According to this article from the Jerusalem Post, Mr. Barhoum immersed himself in Saudi culture, in order to convey the Saudi culture to the movie viewer. I imagine that he found this somewhat interesting, in light of the feelings of Saudi Arabia, and those carried by most other Arab World neighbors, about Israel.
The other FBI agents have rather shallow characters, Jennifer Garners character didn't even really need to exist. I found the actions of the FBI crew to be somewhat irrational (read: Jason Bateman's character), particularly since this was supposed to be a specially-trained unit. The mealy-mouthed Embassy representative, played by Jeremy Piven, is sufficiently irritating, and if anyone has a right to be upset, it is American Embassy employees, whose characters are almost always portrayed as being spineless lapdogs of the U.S. Administration.
All-in-all, this movie was interesting, portrayed Saudi culture in an interesting light, though I hesitate to label it as "accurate." After all, this is Hollywood and facts can get in the way of entertainment. There are other, better movies, such as Paradise Now, that are more interesting and potentially more accurate in characterizing culture.
The movie really revolves around Saudi culture, and the obstacles the FBI faces when trying to discover the perpetrators behind an attack and subsequent suicide bombing of an oil company employees compound, near Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The relationship between Al-Ghazi, the Saudi police officer and the FBI crew was interesting to watch. The character of Al-Ghazi was portrayed by Ashraf Barhoum, who is a Christian Arab-Israeli. He, unto himself, is a geographic conundrum.
It is my perception that many American believe that there are two cultures that inhabit Israel. The first culture, the Jews, are perceived as Europeans that were given a part of Palestine in 1947. The second culture, the Palestinians, are perceived as Muslim Arabs, who are also percieved as having part of Palestine taken away from them, as it didn't really belong to them anyway.
The truth is more complicated, and the truth is somewhat evident in Ashraf Barhoum, an Israeli, and an Arab, and a Christian. That is how complicated Israel is. According to this article from the Jerusalem Post, Mr. Barhoum immersed himself in Saudi culture, in order to convey the Saudi culture to the movie viewer. I imagine that he found this somewhat interesting, in light of the feelings of Saudi Arabia, and those carried by most other Arab World neighbors, about Israel.
The other FBI agents have rather shallow characters, Jennifer Garners character didn't even really need to exist. I found the actions of the FBI crew to be somewhat irrational (read: Jason Bateman's character), particularly since this was supposed to be a specially-trained unit. The mealy-mouthed Embassy representative, played by Jeremy Piven, is sufficiently irritating, and if anyone has a right to be upset, it is American Embassy employees, whose characters are almost always portrayed as being spineless lapdogs of the U.S. Administration.
All-in-all, this movie was interesting, portrayed Saudi culture in an interesting light, though I hesitate to label it as "accurate." After all, this is Hollywood and facts can get in the way of entertainment. There are other, better movies, such as Paradise Now, that are more interesting and potentially more accurate in characterizing culture.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
EarthPulse - National Geographic
EarthPulse - National Geographic
I recently had the opportunity to review some new educational materials published by Wiley & Sons, in cooperation with National Geographic. Earthpulse represents a collection of maps, stories, images, and statistics collected and bound for student's use, to augment instruction.
Earthpulse is now a branch off of the National Geographic website. I have just started to examine this website, but I can already see me using this in my World Geography courses. Imagery really helps convey a sense of place; graphics help convey information. The "Globalization" page under "Our Connected World" seems to indicate that much of the money we spend on goods tends to stay in our own country, despite all the noise we hear that all of our dollars are headed to China.
This site will take much exploration.
I recently had the opportunity to review some new educational materials published by Wiley & Sons, in cooperation with National Geographic. Earthpulse represents a collection of maps, stories, images, and statistics collected and bound for student's use, to augment instruction.
Earthpulse is now a branch off of the National Geographic website. I have just started to examine this website, but I can already see me using this in my World Geography courses. Imagery really helps convey a sense of place; graphics help convey information. The "Globalization" page under "Our Connected World" seems to indicate that much of the money we spend on goods tends to stay in our own country, despite all the noise we hear that all of our dollars are headed to China.
This site will take much exploration.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
