While Arabian summers are quite hot, they can be quite boring at times. Usually, I'd take a stroll down a busy street just to feel in the midst of people... company, you know, or I'd sit down in a streetside cafe, with a cappucino or a bottle of cold water in my hands. Sometimes, I'd visit my friends and hang out with them, though most of them are really busy (most of my friends are older than me). But when there's no alternative, I sit down and watch a rented movie. The other day, I watched a movie which starred George Clooney, one of my favorite actors. The movie was titled "Syriana", though the movie had nothing to do with Syria whatsoever. However, what made the movie title connected with the synopsis was the fact that it was revolving around the Middle East and the oil industry.
The story revolves around 4 main characters. The first is CIA Operative Bob Barnes (George Clooney), who is at a crossroads and discovers the real motive behind the CIA and American interests in the Middle East: assassinate all those who wish for reform in the region and an end to American interests that may interfere with progress. The prime target in this movie is Prince Nasir (Alexander Siddig), who is a reformist and soon-to-be-emir, who teams up with energy analyst Bryan Woodman (Matt Damon), who has recently suffered from a family tragedy and received an offer from the Prince in an effort to make up for his recent loss (Bryan's son drowned in a swimming pool). The Prince's interests conflict with those of Connex-Killen, an oil company formed by a recent merger, which is being questioned by lawyer Bennet Holliday (Jeffrey Wright), and is running an investigation in order to clear corruption charges against Killen. In the midst of all this, a young former oil worker (Mazhar Munir) falls to the charms of a charismatic cleric, who is obviously portrayed as some sort of "terror" chief.
Which brings to my mind what I thought about the whole movie. The movie itself was drama, and the action tidbit only jumps in at the last few minutes of the movie. However, the whole setting of the movie was less than realistic; it was perverted in the sense that it consorted to the backward view on the MidEast by many Westerners. It also gave a bad image of Arabs and Muslims at the same time. During the movie, Bryan, the analyst, gave a bit of racist anti-Arab commentary against Arabs, saying that they don't know much, and that they care about money and power. He also said it outright when he claimed that Arabs were "chopping each other's heads off" before oil was discovered or the sort. It was typical slur, which in itself was quite offensive to myself. However, near the end of the movie, it seemed that Bryan changed his views about the Arabs.
This is where Prince Nasir comes in. He's a prince, though at the same time is a reformist. He is not your typical spoilt royalty, it seems. Nasir, however, shares a lot of views that conform to mine. He encourages more freedom, women's rights, and democratic elections. He also resists interventionist initiatives for reform, such as the Greater Middle East Initiative proposed by Washington, and appreciates that each Arab country "reform at its own pace", should true reform be achieved. He also went for a bigger oil bid: that from the Chinese. This, of course, resisted American business interests in the region, and in the end of the movie, his father, the reigning Emir in the region, appointed his younger brother, Meshal, as the new Emir. According to Nasir, Meshal couldn't even "run a brothel (whorehouse)," much less a country. This is the same type of leadership that the U.S. supports in the Middle East: one that is resistive to reform and progress. And just because of Nasir's resistance, he gets killed by the CIA near the end of the movie.
The death of Nasir couldn't come at a better time, because this is just the same type of political assassination that both the U.S. and Israel use to eliminate opponents to their interests and their policies. What really got my attention was when Nasir told Bryan that he was dubbed "a godless communist" because he spoke of reform and resisted U.S. interests in the region... but he was most likely called that because of his preference to the Chinese oil bid than that of the U.S. It is just like those who resist U.S. policy and occupation, as in Iraq, and are called "terrorists" for doing so.
Then there was the oil issue, which was as dirty as it sounds. Danny Dalton, a prominent figure in the oil business, told Bennett Holliday something worth quoting here:
Finally, there's the young Pakistani teenager who is under the guide of this cleric. It seems all good at first: the cleric is giving him Islamic advice, and is being portrayed like a normal Muslim sheikh, though I must admit that the script-writers went over the top with this one. It was only in the end in which the teenager goes on a suicide mission and attacks an oil tanker off the coast of... Dubai? Or was it Saudi Arabia? Whatever it is, the movie did not make the country that the Emir presides in clear enough. It looked like the Emirates at one point, but also like Saudi Arabia on the other. The overall Arab Muslim image was portrayed negatively in the movie. From the beating of workers on part of Arab policemen, to the bad depiction of Beirut (which is far from being a sort of Tehran, but in fact the Paris of the Middle East), as well as the image of the "Muslim" terrorist. Syriana, while a gripping story that gave sympathy towards the Arab reformist cause, also delineated Arabs and Muslims as a people, giving them a bad image and a bad name.
I just hope that Hollywood comes to its senses and portrays a movie like "Paradise Now", which I haven't watched yet, that depicts the reality of Arabs and Muslims as ordinary people who live normal lives and just want to get out of this mess in one piece, and are in search of peace itself, societal and individual. But who am I kidding? That's "liberal" Hollywood for you...
Salaam, from
Saracen
The story revolves around 4 main characters. The first is CIA Operative Bob Barnes (George Clooney), who is at a crossroads and discovers the real motive behind the CIA and American interests in the Middle East: assassinate all those who wish for reform in the region and an end to American interests that may interfere with progress. The prime target in this movie is Prince Nasir (Alexander Siddig), who is a reformist and soon-to-be-emir, who teams up with energy analyst Bryan Woodman (Matt Damon), who has recently suffered from a family tragedy and received an offer from the Prince in an effort to make up for his recent loss (Bryan's son drowned in a swimming pool). The Prince's interests conflict with those of Connex-Killen, an oil company formed by a recent merger, which is being questioned by lawyer Bennet Holliday (Jeffrey Wright), and is running an investigation in order to clear corruption charges against Killen. In the midst of all this, a young former oil worker (Mazhar Munir) falls to the charms of a charismatic cleric, who is obviously portrayed as some sort of "terror" chief.
Which brings to my mind what I thought about the whole movie. The movie itself was drama, and the action tidbit only jumps in at the last few minutes of the movie. However, the whole setting of the movie was less than realistic; it was perverted in the sense that it consorted to the backward view on the MidEast by many Westerners. It also gave a bad image of Arabs and Muslims at the same time. During the movie, Bryan, the analyst, gave a bit of racist anti-Arab commentary against Arabs, saying that they don't know much, and that they care about money and power. He also said it outright when he claimed that Arabs were "chopping each other's heads off" before oil was discovered or the sort. It was typical slur, which in itself was quite offensive to myself. However, near the end of the movie, it seemed that Bryan changed his views about the Arabs.
This is where Prince Nasir comes in. He's a prince, though at the same time is a reformist. He is not your typical spoilt royalty, it seems. Nasir, however, shares a lot of views that conform to mine. He encourages more freedom, women's rights, and democratic elections. He also resists interventionist initiatives for reform, such as the Greater Middle East Initiative proposed by Washington, and appreciates that each Arab country "reform at its own pace", should true reform be achieved. He also went for a bigger oil bid: that from the Chinese. This, of course, resisted American business interests in the region, and in the end of the movie, his father, the reigning Emir in the region, appointed his younger brother, Meshal, as the new Emir. According to Nasir, Meshal couldn't even "run a brothel (whorehouse)," much less a country. This is the same type of leadership that the U.S. supports in the Middle East: one that is resistive to reform and progress. And just because of Nasir's resistance, he gets killed by the CIA near the end of the movie.
The death of Nasir couldn't come at a better time, because this is just the same type of political assassination that both the U.S. and Israel use to eliminate opponents to their interests and their policies. What really got my attention was when Nasir told Bryan that he was dubbed "a godless communist" because he spoke of reform and resisted U.S. interests in the region... but he was most likely called that because of his preference to the Chinese oil bid than that of the U.S. It is just like those who resist U.S. policy and occupation, as in Iraq, and are called "terrorists" for doing so.
Then there was the oil issue, which was as dirty as it sounds. Danny Dalton, a prominent figure in the oil business, told Bennett Holliday something worth quoting here:
"Corruption charges... corruption? Corruption is government intrusion into market efficiencies in the form of regulation. That's Milton Friedman. He got a goddamn Nobel Prize. We have laws against it precisely so we can get away with it. Corruption is our protection. Corruption keeps us safe and warm. Corruption is why you and I are prancing around in here instead of fighting over scraps of meat in the street. Corruption... is why we win."Corruption is definitely an issue when it comes to Western oil companies making business in the MidEast, with the help of their government. Corruption charges are involved in the assassination of Prince Nasir and the installation of his brother as Emir, who would comply with Western business interests. Certainly, corruption is why the Western oil companies are on top of the business world.
Finally, there's the young Pakistani teenager who is under the guide of this cleric. It seems all good at first: the cleric is giving him Islamic advice, and is being portrayed like a normal Muslim sheikh, though I must admit that the script-writers went over the top with this one. It was only in the end in which the teenager goes on a suicide mission and attacks an oil tanker off the coast of... Dubai? Or was it Saudi Arabia? Whatever it is, the movie did not make the country that the Emir presides in clear enough. It looked like the Emirates at one point, but also like Saudi Arabia on the other. The overall Arab Muslim image was portrayed negatively in the movie. From the beating of workers on part of Arab policemen, to the bad depiction of Beirut (which is far from being a sort of Tehran, but in fact the Paris of the Middle East), as well as the image of the "Muslim" terrorist. Syriana, while a gripping story that gave sympathy towards the Arab reformist cause, also delineated Arabs and Muslims as a people, giving them a bad image and a bad name.
I just hope that Hollywood comes to its senses and portrays a movie like "Paradise Now", which I haven't watched yet, that depicts the reality of Arabs and Muslims as ordinary people who live normal lives and just want to get out of this mess in one piece, and are in search of peace itself, societal and individual. But who am I kidding? That's "liberal" Hollywood for you...
Salaam, from
Saracen
Comments
Post a Comment