Rendition humanizes Arabs
by guest contributor Manish, originally published at Ultrabrown
The new movie Rendition is more interesting for what it is than how it runs. It’s the first fictional film about the U.S. kidnapping-and-torture program, which began under Clinton but was expanded massively under Bush. It’s the first mainstream movie I’ve seen which gives Arabs and Arabic large amounts of humanizing screen time (the protagonist is an Egyptian-American who went to college in the States). And it’s the latest in this year’s wave of whistleblower movies against Dubya’s assault on American liberty.
Mired in noble savage stereotypes, the movie is more earnest than subtle. Moa Khouas, the Arab Romeo, looks like a brown James Franco, but most of the Arab characters are more archetypes than people.
The plot’s central Capulets and Montagues romantic coincidence is Rushdie-esque, a synthetic conceit for the sake of a more interesting story. It’s not a bad movie, just a slow and obvious one, never more so than in a scene where the magnetic Peter Sarsgaard needles CIA muckamuck Meryl Streep with the Constitution, and she responds with 9/11.
The movie is A Mighty Heart in reverse, where the kidnappers are the U.S. government rather than Al Qaeda terrorists. You’ve got the same pretty, pregnant wife embedded in a labyrinthine search for her handsome, intelligent husband. Reese Witherspoon isn’t given much screen direction beyond playing a grieving wife. Jake Gyllenhaal’s character may be suffering from post-traumatic stress sufferer, but the actor sleepwalks through the movie.
This movie was directed by Gavin Hood, the South African who did Tsotsi. The plotting uses the now-familiar Rashomon device of connecting subplots via a single climactic event. One of the subplots is unexpectedly time-shifted, which is great fun.
But the real-life issue is far more significant than the film: the president claims he can legally kidnap anyone around the world, jail him forever without trial, witness or evidence, and have him tortured. It shocks the conscience. Here’s an actual Dubya quote. I can’t figure out whether it’s duplicitous or just feeble-minded:
Q: What’s your definition of the word ‘torture’?
Dubya: That’s defined in U.S. law, and we don’t torture.
Q: Can you give me your version of it, sir?
Dubya: Whatever the law says. [Link]
With no sunlight and no trial, mistakes are inevitable:
- We had Maher Arar wrongly arrested and tortured. We refuse to apologize. We refuse to take him off the no-fly list.
- We had Khaled al-Masri wrongly arrested and tortured. We refuse to apologize. We refuse to pay him compensation.
- We threatened to have the innocent Abdallah Higazy’s family tortured in Egypt:
… [The FBI agent] told him that he should cooperate, and explained that if Higazy did not cooperate, the FBI would make his brother “live in scrutiny” and would “make sure that Egyptian security gives [his] family hell.” … [The agent] knew how the Egyptian security forces operated: “that they had a security service, that their laws are different than ours, that they are probably allowed to do things in that country… probably about torture, sure…” [Higazy said:] “Saddam’s security force–as they later on were called his henchmen–a lot of them learned their methods and techniques in Egypt; torture, rape…” [Link]
And to think America was founded precisely because of this kind of limp-dickery.
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of 
Muslimah Media Watch wrote:
Well, it’s something better, at least. And who can resist a handsome Arab chap? I know I can’t! I’m totally forking over student discount money for this movie.
Posted 29 Oct 2007 at 1:42 pm ¶
Roxie wrote:
I saw this movie and your review is very apt. Captures how I felt about it perfectly.
Unfortunately, on the message board for the viewing of the movie there was this message,
” Hollywood, I get it already! The Middle Eastern people are not all bad guys - they are just misunderstood and trying to take care of their families and stay alive while people shoot at them and bombs go off and and and ENOUGH! Really I’m not a heartless bitch but this is ridiculous. ”
Honey, your privilege is showing!
I can’t believe how someone could fix their mouth to say such a thing (especially considering the fact the people who post on this site WILL meet you (at a movie screening))This kind of attitude is precisely why we need more movies like this
Posted 29 Oct 2007 at 10:29 pm ¶
pH wrote:
I find it interesting that they chose Reece Witherspoon as the wife. Although I may be looking a little too deeply into this, it seems like the only way they could ‘humanize’ the horror of rendition was having the all-American pretty blonde haired blue eyed white girl giving hysterics over her missing husband.
Then again..and this is gonna sound cynical..I don’t think anyone would care if it was a full arab couple, no matter how ‘Americanized’ they were. In that case, no matter what, it’d be giving fuel to the whole “LOL HOLLYWOOD LIEBRALLLS!!!11!!” crowd.
Sad if you ask me..
Posted 30 Oct 2007 at 10:19 am ¶
nadia wrote:
” Hollywood, I get it already! The Middle Eastern people are not all bad guys - they are just misunderstood and trying to take care of their families and stay alive while people shoot at them and bombs go off and and and ENOUGH! Really I’m not a heartless bitch but this is ridiculous. ”
i always wonder what america people like this have been living in. i feel like i can’t turn on the tv or watch a movie without seeing a dehumanized portrayal of arabs. literally, i feel like i can’t escape from it. but to some people is is just “ridiculous” when we are portrayed as anything resembling human.
Posted 30 Oct 2007 at 1:17 pm ¶
Khan wrote:
“It’s the first fictional film about the U.S. kidnapping-and-torture program, which began under Clinton but was expanded massively under Bush.”
It would have expanded just as “massively”, had 9/11 happened during Clinton’s or any other Democrat’s time.
Posted 31 Oct 2007 at 8:06 am ¶
Manish wrote:
“It would have expanded just as “massively”, had 9/11 happened during Clinton’s or any other Democrat’s time.”
Not every candidate is pro-torture.
Posted 31 Oct 2007 at 5:31 pm ¶
Jeremy Pierce wrote:
It’s not duplicitous. I’m not sure it’s feeble-minded, either. It just doesn’t answer the question. It’s not as if he’s not saying anything, though. He obviously thinks theres some content to what the law says, and he says he’s willing to defer to what the law says, whatever it is. He doesn’t think it’s ok to torture, and the way to flesh out what counts as torture is to interpret the law properly. He just doesn’t have a statement of exactly what the law says. Maybe he has a view of that, and maybe he has a view that what happens generally conforms to that law, but it’s not his job to pronounce formally what the law does say. So I agree that it’s not much help, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that he has no view, and it doesn’t mean that he has said nothing of substance. It’s certainly not a circular explanation. It’s just an explanation that calls for more substantive content.
Posted 01 Nov 2007 at 11:25 am ¶
Sewere wrote:
Jeremy said,
Surprising, coming from the same person who said “a noose isn’t a threat if it’s not intended as such.”
Posted 01 Nov 2007 at 2:41 pm ¶
Jeremy Pierce wrote:
Nice. Take what I said out of context (and in fact putting quotes around words I didn’t say) to make it sound as if I was saying the opposite of what I said.
What I said is that it isn’t the noose that’s a threat but the act of hanging a noose in a certain context that’s a threat. The noose itself is never the threat. I was pushing for accuracy in description, not making any political or moral point, and you’ve turned it into the opposite of what I actually said.
Posted 02 Nov 2007 at 5:51 am ¶
Jeremy Pierce wrote:
Wow. I hadn’t been back to that other thread to see the completely ridiculous and uncharitable interpretation people were pretending I meant. I’ve got a fuller response over there, which I imagine might be approved around the time this comment appears.
Posted 02 Nov 2007 at 6:09 am ¶
merq wrote:
Jeremy,
Yes, I understand your “logic” — a noose isn’t a threat in and of itself. It’s just a rope with a festive knot until put into context. I get what you mean and totally agree.
But why stop there?
Stripped of enough context, a noose doesn’t even have to be a rope. It could just be an arrangement of colors as reflected into the eyes, if we get rid of the whole “brain interprets light waves” bit.
[REDACTED BY MODERATOR]
Stripped of the context of language, they could just be cool lines and curves on a page. [REDACTED BY MODERATOR]
Posted 02 Nov 2007 at 8:57 am ¶
Carmen Van Kerckhove wrote:
merq, I edited your comment because it is totally moving into personal insult territory.
It’s fine for us to disagree and argue on this blog, but let’s please keep it civil. Everyone, please read our comment moderation policy, particularly this point:
3. Don’t make personal attacks. If you’re not smart enough to win an argument without resorting to calling someone fat, stupid, crazy, or whatever, maybe you should work on your rhetorical skills.
Posted 02 Nov 2007 at 9:50 am ¶
Sewere wrote:
CVK,
At the risk of coming off as the Nigerian Mafia, I think you should have let Merq’s comment through in its entirety and here’s why:
If someone belittles what is clearly a historically established symbol of violence to your life, it is within reason to apply the same logic, using the same coded language that decontexualizes the violence to carry one’s point across.
I’m willing to be wrong on this but I honestly don’t think Merq was being personal.
Lastly, can you please forward my email to Merq and ask him to contact me? I really hate asking you to be a conduit but don’t have any other way of communicating.
Cheers.
Posted 02 Nov 2007 at 12:05 pm ¶
Sewere wrote:
Manish,
Really sorry for threadjacking your post. I was trying (with too few words) to draw parallels on how certain people are willing to play semantics with serious issues like torture and the threat of death, and especially how the element of race are ingrained in said conversations are….
Sincere apologies for sidetracking the conversation away from your post.
Posted 02 Nov 2007 at 12:26 pm ¶