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.