yorick’s yearnings

Miral is quite an infamous movie. Infamous for its pro-palestinian perspective, its substantive lack of depth, subjectivity and even for the audacity of casting a “bollywood actress” for the female leading character. Much of this critic is not rightly deserved but might be due to the nature of expectations derived from Schnabel’s earlier movies, like Le scaphandre et le papillon.

While some or the critic can be rejected outright, the major problems remain. In fact, at least regarding my restricted talents, the movie as such is extremely challenging. First, there is the style in which Schnabel creates movies, his many different techniques, styles, blends that some times do not fit and are not always convincing (especially in the end when he does a sacrifice to popular taste by adding Tom Waits to Hind’s funeral).

The more challenging (and more fruitful) problem is posed by the perspective which, in a way, is similar to that of Le scaphandre et le papillon, as it is completely restricted to one view. While in the early movie, the perspective largely was that of the French editor Bauby – going as far as locking the audience into his body and looking through his eyes – the latter movie takes a strictly Palestinian position. This is very restricted and can be discussed in multiple (not necessarily negative) ways. First, the stories of the three main female characters: Hind, Nadia and Miral. Even though all of them remain somewhat anaemic, all of them face in their very own way a reality which forces them into action but which they cannot shape. In the end, the real hero of the movie turns out not to be Miral, who, like their mother leaves a desperate existence behind. The true hero is Hind al-Husseini, who is portrayed as a flawless saint, coming from some kind of a fairy tale long turned into forgotten history (illustrated by the old maps of the middle east shown in the beginning of the movie), struggling to turn wretched refugees and orphans into emancipated personalities able to carry on the fate of the Palestinian people. Of course, she fails. Not because of the archaic, traditionally patriarchal structure of the Palestinian society (which is thematized in a somewhat marginal way while telling Nadia’s story). Not because the invading Israelis, who mostly are portrayed as a dark, violent and alien force, but because of the frictions within the Palestinian society itself.

True, Israel is the bad guy in this film – but that is the Palestinian perspective on the matter, be it right or wrong. But the fact that most Israelis represent not real human beings, but a somewhat impersonal power, can be interpreted at least in two different ways. First, it can be seen as plainly anti-Semitic – the fact that the only “real” Israeli in the movie, a girl from Haifa that befriends Miral against her will, does not fit into the stereotype at all is no argument against it. Yet, I still am somewhat hesitant to apply this interpretation. The movie as such is – even though it is full with Hind’s social commitment and the political fight of Palestinian resistance movements – a completely anti-political movie, as Julian Schnabel himself pointed out. Like the historian Jacob Burckhardt 150 years ago, Schnabel portrays political power itself as evil and corrupting. It is not just the Israelis who distort a peaceful life. The Palestinians destroy themselves and their hopes for a better future by their political radicalism and their intolerance. In the end, Miral’s love, the Palestinian terrorist, not only seems to be refined and ready to make peace with Israel, but he also – and consequently – is murdered by his own people for his deviance. This murder destroy Miral’s dreams as effectively as the intifada and the political engagement of her pupils have destroyed Hind’s – and while Hind in the end is shown sitting in her empty school, old, deeply afflicted and lonely, the only perspective for Miral lies in leaving her country for good. In the end, all of them turn out to be a simple flower at the roadside, helpless watching how the wheels keep turning.

The movie has many minor defaults, above all because it fails to create multi-faceted, developing protagonists. But it gives an impressive account on the Palestininan perspective of the Mideast conflict and shows at the same time, why there are no simple solutions, even with regards to only one of the warring factions. To get an idea of the whole picture, however, a deeper involvement with the Israeli view also would be necessary.

Having watched all James Bond movies at least once, I probably am what people consider a fan.

Things are not that easy, however, because there are not too many 007 movies I actually like; Still, when I had the chance to see A Quantum of Solace (the second Bond with Daniel Craig) while being in Berlin a few days ago, I of course rushed to the cinema – although it was remarkably empty.

Of course I knew the trailers in advance and had some idea of what to expect. Nevertheless, I was taken by surprise by the immense speed many cuts and scenes had – thereby occasionally producing wonderfully beautiful pictures. Also, the speed has often been so high that it seemed hard to understand what was going on or to make a clear distinction between the Bond and the evil guys. It seems to me that this was part of the film’s intention. Bond isn’t the good, but empty gentleman and agent anymore, he is frightening and “out of control” at times. Of course, violence has always been part of 007, even spectacular scenes with lots of cruelty. But it always had some ironic momentum. I can not recall Bond speaking of killing as a merely technical issue. Neither I can recall Bond taking things personal. Compared to now, he tended to be some shiny, but empty sticker an many older movies.

Partly, I do like this new development, especially when it is done in such a great way we can enjoy in the best scenes of the new movie – I am, for instance, thinking of the beginning, when the hunt in the tunnels beautifully is contrasted with the scenes of the charming and seemingly normal Northern Italian countryside, adding a new and important irony to the movie and Bond’s character as well.

However, all this cannot hide the fact that the story itself must be regarded as disappointing. I probably have never seen a Bond movie whose story was so thin that the film largely had to rely on car chases and fights in order to avoid producing at least some interesting content. Sometimes it seems that the movie could have been reduced to a mere 30 minutes with the same ease as having been expanded to three hours or more.

The Bond girl (Olga Kurylenko) is a huge step backwards – she obviously has her own story, but the film does not give her the room she would need to unfold it. I do not even see her as attractive, so she can be regarded as being even less than a Bond girl from the early days. Greene (the main bad guy, played by a boring Mathieu Almaric) is no character, just a little bit cynical and trying to maximize his profit in most unethical ways. But he doesn’t have a background at all. The only one who actually has a background is Bond himself – largely because Quantum of Solace is conceived as sequel to the last Bond, Casino Royale. But it all ends up in a largely forseeable hunt for one certain, previously absolutely unknown rogue (Greene) who seems to be part of a bigger, even more mysterious organization that doesn’t even have a name. How he is connected to Vesper is not explained in a satisfying way, probably they both just have been some small fishes in the big world conspiracy that is behind everything – thus opening up a world of possibilities for a whole lot of many more sequels… Is it wishful thinking to expect that those will actually have a story that is worth to be told?