What were the intentions behind the film Paradise Now?

Abu-Assad, the director of Paradise Now has stated that his film was “simply meant to open a discussion” about the conflict between Israel and Palestine through the story of two suicide bombers. Rather than taking sides, Assad claims his aim was to create something that would allow for meaningful discussion about the resistance and violence that occurred. But to what extent is this true. I think what is successful about the film is Assad’s ability to subvert one’spreconceptions; he is able to humanise the people behind the killings by showing what it must be like for them, knowing what they are going to do. Showing Said’s family, the night before he dies, adds to the audience’s sympathy for the character as we feel for the loss they will soon feel and how this is affecting Said. I think this was successful in showing Said almost as a victim, someone who will never get to see their family again, however is this how we should view him? The men are not being forced into this decision, in fact it’s made clear that they can choose to opt out of the mission, and so framing Said as a victim seems problematic. 

 

The female character, Suha, acts as an ‘outsider’, an opposing view to juxtapose Said and Khaled. She is openly against what Khaled is doing and questions his view of violence as a necessary ‘sacrifice’, saying ‘that’s not sacrifice, that’s revenge’. I think the inclusion of her character was important in avoiding bias, showing the other side of the coin. However, I think she should have been more present in the story in order for her role to have a greater impact. Another questionable choice from Assad comes with the scene after Said returns to the Tel Aviv and decides he wants to go through with it. He explains that if Israel chooses to frame itself as the victim, then he will become a victim also, as well as a murderer. As Said gives this monologue, the camera slowly zooms in to him, surpassing the other person in the room, ending with a shot of just him. The slow zoom creates an emotional connecting with Said as we literally grow closer to him, almost forcing the audience to feel sympathy for him. Certain aspects of the speech certainly are worthy of our sympathy: the struggle of the Palestinian people under the control of Israel up. However, he then uses this to justifies himself becoming a murderer. Perhaps Assad wanted to explain what drives people to terrorism and help us understand their decisions better, although through the camerawork, this scene is troubling as it seems to be wanting the viewer to side with murder as a justifiable cause. 

 

I think it is clear what Assad’s intentions were for this film – to explore the minds and positions of suicide bombers in Palestine – and there are certainly moments where I think he has been successful in creating a basis for productive discussion. For instance, the final shot of the film features another zoom into Said, this time ending on a close up. As we look into his eyes, into his thoughts, what does Assad want us to think? Perhaps he is leaving it up to us to decipher what Said is thinking, and whether we agree with his choice or not. In this way the film is successful in formulating discussion. However, I think sometimes his choices come across as biased (such as his emotional monologue, and the final scene with his family) on the side of violent resistance.