Case against the US Embassy in Chile by the Harmon Family

The opening arguments in the case of Charles Harmon vs. the American embassy in Chile were heard in the Supreme Court today. The following is a brief outline of the points brought by the attorney representing the Harmon family:
1. The American Government believed that Charles Harmon was in possession of information implicating the US military in the coup of 1973. Harmon was seen by several witnesses writing down pieces of conversations he had with the American military personnel he met in Vina del Mar. Although he never showed the contents of his notebook to the aforementioned American military personnel numerous witnesses saw him jotting down notes moments after speaking with the personnel in the dining room, at the front desk and in the entryway to the hotel. Harmon’s companion at the hotel was Terry Simon, a family friend. Simon did not take any kind of notes at any time during their stay at the hotel. The photographs she took consisted of typical tourist fare. Upon her return to Santiago, she was allowed to leave the country. It seems clear that Harmon’s notes played a pivotal role in his subsequent arrest and murder. Harmon and Simon were both in the same environment, both speaking to the same Americans yet Simon is allowed to return to the states and the Harmon is murdered. It is the notebook that separates the government’s perception of Harmon as a guilty party to their perception of Terry as an innocent. The notebook is a recorded document of conversations Harmon had with military personnel in which they freely admitted that they were in Vina del Mar to orchestrate the coupe.

2. The involvement of the American government in cover-ups is evidenced in the murder of Frank Teruggi. Not only was his death not recorded but the government delivered a lot of misinformation about Teruggi as well. One embassy worker suggested that he was on a plane home or already at his parents’ home or simply hiding. The government made no effort to further explore these claims, seemingly satisfied with their conjectures. The fact that the government would avidly pursue a course of misinformation concerning one American makes it likely that the same course of misinformation was used in their dealing with Charlie Harmon and his family. Harmon and Teruggi were not only friends but work colleagues as well. They were both known for writing many articles critical of the Chilean government and of American involvement in Chilean political and economic affairs. The lack of records regarding Teruggi’s death also points toward a cover-up by the American embassy.


3. The American government did little to help the Harmon family discover the fate of their son and, in fact, often blocked information from getting to the family. The information regarding Harmon’s death came from the Ford Foundation and not the embassy. The embassy repeatedly put the Harmon’s questions aside with promises of speaking to Chilean generals “Tomorrow”. No effort was made by the embassy to search hospitals and the stadium for Harmon until pressured to do so by the Harmon family. It is clear that the government did not search for Harmon because they already knew he was dead. There is an eye witness report from a Mr. Gonzalez who states that he saw Harmon and a group of Americans in the embassy office. He observed Harmon being beaten but does not know what happened to him later.

4. Additionally Harmon’s body was shipped to America seven months after Ed Harmon left Chile. This is 6 months and 3 weeks later than originally promised. This delay made it impossible for an accurate autopsy to be preformed. If the embassy had nothing to hide than the body would have been shipped in the promised three days.

Paradise Now and Censorship

Regardless of the subject matter I am against any censorship of a film just as I would be against burning books, refusing funding for art programs based on subject matter etc. Thus regardless of the movie in question, I would not sign a petition that was in any way related to censorship. That being said after reading the petitions I have to wonder if the writers of said petitions saw the same film as I. The problem with a film like Paradise Now is that it can get caught up in sound bites. “The movie follows the path of two Palestinian terrorists.” You get the drift. The reality of sitting down and watching the film is very different. Actually watching the film reveals that it is not so much about terrorism as it is about the lives of two guys in the west bank.

I have three arguments against the censoring Paradise Now from the Oscars.
First, I have always had a hard time with people assuming that film goers cannot differentiate between the story in the movie and real life. The petition reads, “Giving an Oscar to this movie will glorify these murders and the groups that have sent them. It may even encourage more murders of this type.” I can’t imagine that anyone would be inspired to terrorism because the saw an Oscar winning film in which it was featured. Such reasoning is an insult to filmgoer’s intelligence. We can recognize that a story is being told without assuming that every action and word on the screen is reality. I do not leave I am Legend expecting to find empty streets outside of the movie theatre.

Second, the petition makes sweeping generalizations about the movie that are simply not true, i.e. not based on the actual film. From the petition: ““‘Paradise Now’ is a movie that attempts to explain away the actions behind mass murderers. This mere act, in effect, legitimizes this type of mass murder and portrays the murderers themselves as victims!” This statement is fascinating to me because it so closely echoes the sentiments Said expresses when he speaks about oppressors pretending to be victims.
The mother’s letter that prompted the petition is based upon a one-sentence synopsis based on falsehoods. “The movie shows the route that two young Palestinians take to become suicide murderers, up until the minute they board a bus in Tel Aviv filled with children.” Only one Palestinian boarded the bus and it was a bus full of soldiers, not children. Understand that I am not saying that one bomber rather than two and soldiers rather than children somehow make the action less horrible but if one is to attack the film then the attack should be based on the film itself and not on arguments designed to enflame.

Third, the petition draws similarities between the Palestinian bombers and those involved in the world trade center, an analogy designed to feed on anti terrorist sentiment. “Are the Israelis to blame for the Twin Towers in New York, the night club in Indonesia, the hotel in Egypt, the shop in Turkey, the restaurant in Morocco or in Tunis, the hotel in Jordan, the underground in London, the train in Spain? And the list goes on and on.” This is exactly the kind of reasoning that has gotten America into the pickle they are presently in throughout the world. It is a sad but true state of affairs that the world has many groups of disgruntled, unhappy and angry people. The reasons for the terrorism between Israel and Palestine are not, necessarily, tied to acts of terrorism in other parts of the world. To say so is to ignore the present political situation in any specific region.

Terrorism and terrorists are hot button topics; a film that chronicles the lives of two would-be terrorists is sure to garner attention, sure to attract anger and to elicit a strong response. That does not mean that it should be withdrawn for nomination of a film award. Ideally an Oscar should be awarded to the art of the film regardless of the subject material.

We Wish to Inform You

We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will be Killed With Our Families is a difficult yet completely engrossing read. Philip Gourevitch does a great job of giving the reader a sense of an entirely senseless time period. The information he relates is beyond grim but his writing style makes it hard to put the book down. While maintaining a, for the most part, objective stance Gourevitch give the reader a widely encompassing look at the Rwandan genocide. He includes a broad spectrum of events and atrocities moving from historical background to the stories of specific individuals with ease.

It is this broad spectrum and large view which are missing in Hotel Rwanda. In true Hollywood film making style, Hotel Rwanda clearly separated the good buys from the bad. Good versus evil is sharply demarcated, with the participants of each camp clearly labeled. What Gourevitch’s book makes so abundantly clear is the widespread mania, which spread throughout Rwanda. In the film either the militia or the Hutu army carries out atrocities and massacres, in Gourevitch’s telling neighbors turn against neighbors and friends turn against friends. Few were immune from the hatred, from slaying an erstwhile companion, coworker or friend. Those images are more terrifying than a truck of angry militia attacking a UN convoy.

Gourevtich also places the genocide within a historical context. While the film uses the president’s assassination as the impetus for chaos, the book makes it clear that the seeds of hatred had long been sown and that the call to massacre Hutus was not unexpected. I was glad I read the book before viewing the movie as it helped make sense of its many snippets of historical information. I am not sure, however, if I can say that I was ‘glad’ to have read the book. It opened a door into a world that is in many ways beyond my comprehension. Its images continue to haunt me. I think of Rwanda as I chat with my neighbors, as I look at the diverse ethnicities in the checkout line, as I simply drive down the street. Gourevitch’s work has shaken my world view.

Conejo's Tale

Now, years later, I can look back and see the desperation of my childhood but at the time it was all so commonplace, so normal. Funny how the greatest pain, the worst terror was so much a part of my everyday life that I had become immune to it. When my family was murdered I went into a kind of trance. Wondering the jungle for days with no food or water and no need for them. The soldiers took me in and I was grateful. I was grateful for the food and water, grateful for a place to sleep, grateful to have a roof over my head. Above all, I think I was most grateful to be around other people. It did not matter what they did to me, or what they said to me. I survived.

But then the soldiers left. Throwing a few coins my way, they left me behind. At first I was angry. And once again I was scared, left with no food and no one to help me. Days, or was it weeks, later a woman in a nearby village began to feed me. Soon I started to think that I would again, survive. Still, I kept my coins with me always. Thinking, I suppose, that they would buy me freedom – that somewhere there was a place I could stay and that the coins would take me there.

I met the doctor by chance, he was looking for something, something I thought I could find. The woman in the village did not care if I stayed or went, so together the doctor and I set out. I liked the doctor. He spoke kindly to me. He gave me food and never hit or yelled at me. I had someone to talk to. But as we met other people on the journey I grew worried. No matter who we met, no matter how far we had gone the doctor always wanted to go, “further”. He was always searching, hoping to find answers I suppose, looking for his old students. He died before he found them.

For a long time I thought him a fool. Only a fool would leave a home, a job and a family in the city to travel through the jungle looking for people he had not seen in years. Only a fool would keep climbing up a mountain in the heat looking for people who were no longer there. As I get older, however, I see the doctor in a different light. For years I have lived in the same village where he died. I have married, have two children and most of the time I feel contented. There is something missing though, that something that the doctor had – a purpose, a connection with someone or something outside of himself. I do not have that. I help the soldier when the villagers are ill; I hunt and gather food for my family but when I am gone what will be my legacy? The doctor left a legacy of healing, if not for him my wife and second son would be dead. It was the doctor who gave the soldier the strength to heal and the soldier who healed my family. I do not have those gifts. I survive day to day but my legacy will be my children who will simply continue to fight to survive as I have done. I want to leave more. The doctor made me want to leave more. I often go for long walks through the jungle - searching, looking. When my wife asks where I am going I tell her, “Further.”

The Day I Became a Woman

Using three short stories, The Day I Became a Woman cleverly reveals many aspects of the role of women in traditional Iranian society. The film begins with the beginning of womanhood, a girl's 9th birthday. We watch as Hava, the birthday girl, is measured for a chador and then rushes out to enjoy an hour of playtime with her friend before she becomes a woman. In some ways it was heart wrenching to see. We follow Hava as she runs through town, plays on the beach and yearns for her playmate ( he is studying and not allowed to come out and play). The image of the chador is never far behind. Hava gives her scarf, large and black, to some boys to use as a sail. Watching it catch the wind and sail away, we see Hava's independence moving farther and farther from her grasp. Once the small raft is out of sight, Hava - even without her chador- has lost a bit of her freedom. Hassan, her playmate, sends her to buy candy which she then feeds to him. In a somewhat uncomfortable scene she feeds him licks of a lollipop and pieces of tamarind. He holds on to the bars of the window, unwilling to reach out a hand and feed himself. Symbolically she is already wearing a chador. It is no surprise when her mother comes to her and slips the veil over her head.

The second revelaing scene is the story of Ahoo. She is in a bike race, rushing away from the known and traditional and heading quickly into a more modern life, into something the unknown. The image of the chador is again important. All of the women on the bikes are wearing chadors, traditional black but with pants and sneakers. The woman with whom Ahoo competes for the lead is also wearing a chador but with the addition of ear phones. Here is a truly 'modern' woman. Ahoo is the only woman in the race who seems to struggle to keep the chador from flying off. While the others simply pedal along, Ahoo's chador billows in the wind and she struggles to keep it on. Interestingly enough the various men who come to convince Ahoo to quit the race are all wearing white clothes or are bare chested. They are dressed for comfort, not so the women on the bikes.

As an aside, at one point the women pass a road sign that says simply, "You are here." Great image.

While the image of the chador, or lack thereof, reveals alot about women's roles, the dialogue, or lack thereof, is equally revealing. Throughout Ahoo's story none of the women speak. They barely glance at each other. Each seems completely self contained, within their own world. Their only unity is that they are participating in a non-traditional activity; the bike race. It is the men who speak, the men who make demands. Ahoo says only one sentence, "Go ahead, divorce me." It is clear that she is experiencing some strong emotions but the fact that they are not verbalized says more than words ever could.

Zinat

I saw the film as an articulation of the Iranian struggle as the country moved to westernize/modernize. It is easy to forget that revolutions, be they white or red, do not simply sweep trough a country and “voila” everyone is instantly part of the new era. Instead changes affect everyone in slightly different manners. Zinat embraced the modernizing changes whole-heartedly; she took to heart that the training she had received would change her life forever. She viewed the clinic as much more than just a job; her work had become part of who she was, of how she defined herself and her relationships with those around her.
Her parents embraced society’s changes only so far as it would not affect the long-term real-life goals they had for their daughter, i.e. that she would marry. She was still a women and traditional roles still applied, her role in the clinic was only something to tide her over until she got married, it was not something that should in any way define who she was or what she should expect from her life. Even when the official tells her father that they will have to repay the government for her training, he is willing to do so. The training and its ensuing cost is for him some kind of abstraction, not as real as a daughter who is not married; a daughter who has not yet fulfilled the role traditional society expects from her.
Hamed sees, at least in the beginning, Zinat as only a woman, for him the role of medic is inconsequential; he places absolutely no importance on it. For him her work is not a threat, because it simply does not exist.
Ashraf is the society in transition. At the beginning of the film, Ashraf sees Zinat as a woman defying society’s traditional role by not marrying and having children. Zinat’s role as a medic is worthless to Ashraf other than as a means of getting money by selling the formula. As the film progresses it is Ashraf’s struggle to accept Zinat in her role as a medic that is the catalyst for the film’s turning point.

Ending:
Zinat remains fairly unchanged throughout the movie. It is the other people’s reaction to her that changes. The mother in law remains unchanged in her views. She sees Zinat only as a woman who has transcended the bonds of society (and the physical bonds she has set for her i.e. closed doors and windows, sleeping in her mother in laws bedroom etc). She refuses or is unable to see Zinat in a modern role and sees her only as failing her role as daughter in law.

Husband:
When Hamed shows up at Ashraf’s house to help Zinat, it is clear that he is beginning to truly understand that Zinat has an important role to play outside of wife and daughter-in-law. By the end of the evening, Zinat’s role as a medic has transcended her role as a woman. Hamed is able to look at the result of what she is doing and understand/appreciate its importance without looking at Zinat as a woman. Zinat and the modernization she represents have the ability to save (literally and figuratively) their village, their society. Hamed understands this as he jumps on the back of the truck, leaving his village, his past allegiances behind him.


Role of Ashraf
Ashraf is the embodiment of the way in which revolutions happens within a specific society. For her to embrace the changes in society she must be able to look at Zinat and see a trained medic who can save her child’s life. By the end of the film she is able to do so in fact she so believes in the power of Zinat’s role as a medic that she locks her in the room with her child sealing both of their fates.


Throughout the film, I loved the imagery of the veils. The covering up while meeting with guests, the removing of veils to show a private face, a private feeling. After Zinat serves her future mother in law, the first thing she does upon leaving the room is to remove her outer veil. Once the veil is removed, she is able to show the true conflict of her emotions. The veils are not heavy except, interestingly enough, for the one Zinat wears to work, but they consume, cover, and obliterate the women from head almost to toe. The veil at the wedding completely covers Zinat’s face – interesting. I know that the veils are part of the traditional society but I thought their presence fascinating and beautifully done.

Indochine

I agree with Panivong Norindr’s view of Indochine as a “dangerous fascination precisely because it brings visual pleasure without questioning or subverting any preconceived ideas about French colonial rule in southeast Asia.” Not only are the images presented without question but so too is the characterization of its main player, Eliane. At times she seems to move effortlessly between the two worlds of Southeast Asia and France. But her relationship with both worlds is presented in only the most superficial manner. There is no close look at what it takes to make a plantation run, no explanation as to why men afraid for their lives would be more afraid of the plantation owner, so that they enter the factory after the fire. I agree with Roger Ebert that there is something very Gone With the Wind like in the film. There is an overall fascination with the romantic ideal of Indochina, of life on a rubber plantation without a corresponding understanding of the realities required to make such a plantation run.
I also found Eliane’s opium smoking interesting. It is never really explored or discussed but clearly there is a problem if she moves from the occasional smoke at her summerhouse with a lover, to days spent laid out in an opium den The only person Eliane seems to defer to is Madame Tanh and perhaps that is because she knows of her opium addiction. Eliane is taken to Madame Tanh’s house after her latest opium binge and it is there that she finds out that Camille is to marry Madame Tanh’s son. She seems willing to give up Camille to the Tanhs with little fight.