Jimmy's Corner

Douglas Freeman: I am sorry, this is my first torture.
Corrine Whitman: The
United States does not torture, Douglas....

That was one of the dialogues that caught my ear when I was watching Rendition just a few hours ago. But is the movie as strong as the quoted dialogue says?...

A movie that has a two time Oscar winner Meryl Streep, Oscar winner Reese Witherspoon, Oscar nominee Jake Gyllenhaal, Golden Globe nominee Peter Sarsgaard and the Egyptian American actor Omar Metwally must be a masterpiece that I would enjoy from core to clux, that is what I thought. However, the movie has surprised me, unpleasantly, with many mistakes and misconceptions that are so clear and glareful to spoil the whole interest in watching the movie to its end.

If you have not watched the movie yet, I am not going to spoil it for you. I will just point out the things I'd like to write about here, because this is not meant to be a movie review.

The movie starts with a great mistake before the credits are even done showing. It shows Cape Town, South Africa and Chicago, USA sharing the same afternoon. That is to say you can see Cape Town with the sun ready to set, and then the scene moves to Chicago at the same moment to find the sky going red for sunset. The movie makers seem to have forgotten the fact that if it is 16:00 in Cape Town, it should be so dark as 01:00 in Chicago.

The movie discusses the idea of torture and the rendition policy that is applied since 9/11. It discusses the fact that the CIA has been transferring whoever they suspect to be related to terrorism, send them to Morocco, Egypt or Saudi Arabia for interrogation; in which torture is the whole point. To some extent it also shows how the US officials seem to be living in ivory towers unable to see the fact that they are actually ordering illegtimate torturing of people that tarnishes the image of their country and kills its credibility before the eyes of the world. However, it seems like the movie makers wanted to appear so neutral to the case in a way that resulted in losing the whole point. Nevertheless, you can still smell the contradiction between America after 9/11 and America as stated in the US constitution; the later being too good to be true in the shadow of the earlier. I think the movie makers should have used the two hour timeline of the movie to put a better scenario on the screen.

So many Saudis were so angry after they watched The Kingdom. They thought the movie mis-displayed them and showed the Kingdom as a "jungle", just like Jennifer Garner said about it. I agree with them totally. Riyadh in The Kingdom looked worse than Harlem in New York despite the fact that Riyadh is one of the most beautiful cities in the Gulf. Saudis themselves are represented as a punch of poor-wearing-white-doing-nothing-backward people, while the rest of them are terrorists. These mistakes and misconceptions truly hurt the credibility and the message of The Kingdom. Rendition is not any different, yet even worse.

Rendition's action is mostly shot in Morocco, and I have never seen one paved street in Rendition's Morocco. The movie gives you the feeling that Morocco is simply as small, dirty and backward as the early 19s Egypt that appeared in The Mummy. If you have ever been to Morocco you would know that the movie was either shot in the dirtiest areas of the country or in a studio built in there, but never the real streets of Morocco. What is worse is that, the movie does not refer to it as Morocco, but rather as North Africa; which would tell the American viewer that this is how the whole North Africa looks like.

Then, in the sub-plot, the movie tries to discuss a point that is totally irrelevant to the main plot's point. It shows women in 'North Africa' as poor oppressed objects that are stripped of their very right to choose whom to marry. Once again, a misconception that does more harm than good. Even the only trick in the movie that tries to interweave the sub-plot to the main plot brings the viewer to the fact that women in the Middle East need to be freed the same way innocent terrorist suspect held by USA needs to be freed.

Again, nevertheless, I still like some parts of the movie that if taken out of the whole context would just appear to be nice:

• Despite the torturing of an innocent man for a whole week, Corrine Whitman (Streep) - to symbolize the US administration - fails to come to terms with the fact that the United States does torture illegally held detainees.
  "The United States does not torture, Douglas." (Oh yeah, tell me about Abu Ghraib)
• The nature of the confessions the US gets from the people they torture is just like Al Ibrahimi (Metwally) says:
  "Tell me what to say and I will say it."
• The true outcome of torturing someone is just like Douglas Freeman (Gyllenhaal) states
  "Give me a pie chart, I love pie charts. Anything, anything that outweighs the fact that if you torture one person you create ten, a hundred, a thousand new enemies."
• The US government is putting everyone under the microscope just like Isabella Al Ibrahimi (Witherspoon) says:
  "You have my name. You have my home address, you have my phone number, you have everything! You have my husband!"

The movie poster as well makes me ask: why don't American movie makers put the pictures of non-American actors on the poster despite the fact that they have leading roles? You can't see Omar Metwally poster the same way you can't see Khaled Abul Nagga on Civic Duty's poster... Something wrong with how they look or what?

Finally, I cannot say anything but that the movie was a big disappointment for me.
No, in fact, it gave me some hope that if Anwar Al Ibrahimi (Omar Metwally) can marry Isabella Fields (Reese Witherspoon) and Omar is Egyptian, then I still have chances with Hillary Duff :D.

Labels: america, cia, egypt, morocco, movie, rendition

Iraq is "a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, January 31, 2003.

Iran is "biggest threat to Mid-East"
• Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, July 31, 2007

If we put things in the same order, I think we know where it all leads now.

Labels: america, iran, iraq, war

George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden are having a conversation via Al Jazeera television. Bin Laden tells George Bush, "There is no point of engaging in further war. I can see total peace in the future!"

George Bush replies, "Oh yeah and tell me what you see?"

Osama answers, "I can see New York, with new great buildings on one side and beautiful new buildings on the other side, and everything is peaceful and wonderful."

George Bush says, "Wow is that what you see? Well I'll tell ya what I see for the future of Afghanistan... I see a house here, a house there, a small building here and small building there, but there are signs hanging in the middle of the street."

Osama asks, "And what do they say?"

George answers, "Hell, I don't know. I can't read Hebrew!"

Labels: afghanistan, america, israel, joke

I love it, Dolly.

Labels: america, democracy, france, sticker

While reading Karin's blog, a post about the Israeli plans to strike Iran attracted me to leave a comment that started a nice debate with Karin.
For me:

I do not think Israel will be up to the threat. Iran's nuclear stronghold is too strong for Israel to destroy by itself. At the same time I do not think Bush is so stupid to open a new front for himself. It can be possible later but not now.

However, if we translate the American actions the days before into messages we would find:

1. America is sending an aircraft carrier to the Gulf (US Virigina) which makes it possible that America is planning for a strike.
2. America is sending more troops into Iraq (may be to double its forces there), which is an action that makes us sure that it is either preparing to defend Iraq from an expected Irani strike after bombing the nuclear facilities or preparing for an on-land invasion (which is not possible I believe). Or maybe to hold down the Shiia anger after the strike against Iran.

However, it is very stupid if Israel reveals its plans to strike Iran's nuclear facilities because this puts an end to them.

What I am sure of,it is going to get uglier.

While Karin thought that:

Israel HAS nukes, plenty of them - everybody knows that ... and now it is as well abundantly clear why it always refused to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty!!

George W. would HAVE to stand by his partner, he'd have NO choice, and if I, like you, translate the American actions, I DO FIND an imminent danger coming from just these "partners"!!America HAS already several aircraft-carriers in the Golf ... the "US Virginia" is just one MORE ... America, rather George W. would LIKE (I hope to GOD the democrats will be able to avoid that!) to send some more 20,000-40,000 troups to Iraq which , in MY humble opinion, is absolute CRAZINESS! I have NO idea about military and am NO politician, but I have a lot of common sense which tells me that it is:

1. already OVERDUE TIME TO GET OUT and ...
2. IF - he'd hypothetically have to double the entire force to "eradicate insurgents" .. another 20,000-40,000 will only increase "insurgency" and attacks on the people .. AND HATRED!

So .. either FULL (what is DEAD-wrong in my eyes) ... or get the hell OUT - NOW!! There will - I believe - NEVER be democracy as long as people won't be READY for it .. and the way groups and sects in Iraq are fighting one another, they ARE NOT and won't be that fast! I don't know why this is so difficult to understand ...In ONE point I have to agree reluctantly though wholeheartedly... it will get MUCH MORE UGLY!!!

I agree with you, Karin it is getting very ugly here. However, at the same time, I believe there is a kind of a tactic behind what was happening the last few days. To sum up:

1. The American actions (US Virginia and troops increase)
2. The Israeli operation leak (which is very rare to happen)

I do not believe that the US or Israel will give Iran a strike now. And I find a better translation for their actions. Each country has plans when it comes to the state of being threatened. Iran as well has plans to stop such attacks. The US actions and Israeli leak are just to observe and measure the Irani reaction politically and defensively. Therefore when it is time to attack, they strike with enough knowledge about what to expect during and after the attack.

And yeah still we agree, It is going to get ugly.

Labels: america, debate, iran, iraq, israel

In light of Mubarak's statement about Egypt's intentions to produce nukes if Iran does, the following questions popped up suddenly, please try to answer:

1. Was Gamal Mubarak's secret visit to the White House an early coordination with the American side about Egypt's role in pressing on Iran?
2. A few days ago Abul Gheit, Egypt Minister of Foreign Affairs, asked Iran to take steps to normalize relationships with Egypt. Then, Mubarak hints about Egypt producing nukes if Iran does... Is it the American stick and carrot policy?
3. Israel is giving the deaf-ear-blind-eye to the Irani nuclear problem's developments... Is it the silence that precedes the storm?
4. Egypt has just allowed the US Virginia to pass through the Suez Canal to the Gulf. America used to do this when they were about to strike Iraq... Now who is next?

I am going crazy :S.

Labels: america, egypt, iran, israel, nukes, questions