War is Cruel
War is Cruel
I finally caught up this morning with Michael Winterbottom and Mat Whitecross's The Road to Guantanmo (Roadside, 6.23). I realize that I'm expected to jump up and down like many critics did when this half-doc, half-recreated drama had its debut last February at the Berlin Film Festival, but I don't quite feel it...sorry.
I never felt less than absorbed by Guantanamo. I respected and believed what I was seeing...but I didn't feel all that heavily caught up in it for reasons I'll soon explain.
Rizwan Ahmed, Farhad Harun and Afran Usman, although not necessarily in left-to-right order. (If anyone can help...)
Guantanamo is an anti-American political horror film. It's a true story of three young British Muslims who made an ill-advised visit to Afghanistan after celebrating a wedding in neighboring Pakistan in October 2001. The upshot was that they were rounded up as suspected Al Queada collaborators and later flown to the U.S military base in Guantanamo, Cuba, and then detained for over two years.
I don't mean to say that the film has an anti-American attitude -- the facts about what happened to these guys are damning in and of themselves.
It's a sad portrait of what undoubtedly happened to many innocent Muslims unlucky enough to get caught up in America's Mideast assault on all suspected 9/11 collaborators and/or supporters, in the weeks that followed the World Trade Center attacks.
The stories of Shafiq Rasul, Ruhel Ahmed and Asif Iqral (who recount their saga in talking-head footage while being portrayed in the dramatic sections by Rizwan Ahmed, Farhad Harun and Afran Usman) are shocking, pathetic, appalling. Their brutal treatment at the hands of American troops and various U.S. intelligence officers smells like stupidity, ignorance and racism every step of the way.
The heart of the film is the depiction of their abusive treatment at Guantanamo's Camp X-Ray and Camp Delta. Geneva Convention be damned -- America was enraged and hell-bent on vengeance after 9/11, and these poor guys caught the brunt of it.
But I have to say I felt a certain distance from their story, despite the repellent nature of their treatment and the deplorable behavior of their captors, because their decision to travel to Afghanistan in the first weeks after 9/11 was awfully reckless.
The real guys say to the camera that no one expected American troops to come thundering into Afghanistan so they were caught unawares...to which one can only say, "Come again?" The entire world knew that US forces were going to hit Afghanistan in a search for Osama bin Laden. Anyone watching CNN knew that Afghanistan was definitely not a smart place to be back then, especially if you were a Muslim from England.
Nonetheless, with all manner of military Armageddon being predicted to slam into Afghanistan by CNN's Wolf Blitzer and every other media guy in the U.S. and Britain, these three dudes decided to visit that beleagured country because it seemed like a good idea at the time.
A little perspective, if I may: Berlin women were raped by Russian soldiers. Those conquered by Roman troops in the ancient days were humiliated and slaughtered by God-knows-how-many-thousands? Innocent people have been getting victimized, bludgeoned and chewed up by wars for thousands of years. The conquering army marches in, looking to punish and subjugate (or interrogate), and those too weak or old or dumb to get out of their way catch hell.
So Lord knows it's a horrid world when warriors pick up the sword, but only a careless person walks into a potentially lethal situation without fully considering the consequences.
I'm not saying that the "Tipton 3" (the victims were all from the British town of Tipton) were stupid, but they sure didn't think things through.
In fact, given the worked-up state that Americans were known to be in after 9/11 and the virtual certainty that bombs would soon be falling upon Taliban forces and suspected Al Queada sympathizers in that region, why didn't the Pakistani woman that the British-residing groom (a guy named Monir, who later disappeared) intended to marry come to England instead, so both parties would be out of the danger zone?
The first half-hour of Guantanamo, which quickly intros the trio and begins the renactment of their story, immediately pulls you in. Their initial visit, fleeing the bombs, seeing dead victims being buried...all of it feels authentic and then some.
The pace slows, naturally, after their capture by British troops in Afghanistan, their being handed over to the U.S. military and taken first to Kandahar Air Base (where the beatings and interrogations start) and then flown to Guantanamo in January 2002.
The poor guys are kept inside chain-linked cells that are always lit and resemble dog kennels. No sleep, constant inspections, berated and brutalized...all depicted with terrible realism.
They're interrograted by careless intelligence officers who claim to have video footage of them attending an Osama bin Laden speech, which of course the three guys deny.
And they're beaten up and shat upon in all kinds of grotesque ways. The most Orwellian torture they're put through involves being tied up and forced to absorb super-loud heavy metal music with incessant strobe lights flashing.
Their innocence is eventually discovered in 2004 and they're slowly, gradually freed. Winterbottom and Whitecross remind us, however, that 500 or so prisoners are still sweating it out in Guantanamo.
But my basic problem remains: I didn't identify with the Tipton 3 because if I were Muslim, I certainly wouldn't have travelled to the Middle East for a wedding in the immediate wake of 9/11. I mean, who would? Think about it.
Posted by Jeffrey Wells on June 1, 2006 at 11:18 AM
comment #1
Daniel Zelter says ...
>The real guys say to the camera that no one >expected American troops to come thundering into >Afghanistan so they were caught unawares...to >which one can only say, "Come again?" The entire >world knew that US forces were going to hit >Afghanistan in a search for Osama bin Laden. >Anyone watching CNN knew that Afghanistan was >definitely not a smart place to be back then, >especially if you were a Muslim from England.
To be fair, maybe they reserved plane tickets before 9/11. And the U.S. was admittedly trying to put on a diplomatic farce of "negotiating" with the Taliban for Osama's capture. I.E. "give him up and no one gets hurt", even though that wasn't really why we were there in the first place...(Hints of things to come with Saddam, but hopefully not Iran.)
"A little perspective, if I may: Berlin women were raped by Russian soldiers."
They didn't seem to mind when their husbands, fathers and brothers were doing the raping...
"Those conquered by Roman troops in the ancient days were humiliated and slaughtered by God-knows-how-many-thousands?"
That doesn't make it right, but the Romans weren't any different from any other imperialistic power at the time. It's when the Europeans started making these conquests racially-motivated that it started getting out of hand.
>In fact, given the worked-up state that Americans >were known to be in after 9/11 and the virtual >certainty that bombs would soon be falling upon >Taliban forces and suspected Al Queada >sympathizers in that region, why didn't the >Pakistani woman that the British-residing groom >(a guy named Monir, who later disappeared) >intended to marry come to England instead, so >both parties would be out of the danger zone?
She didn't have money, maybe? I'm also not sure if he could track her down well enough to be able to buy her a plane ticket if that was the case. But then that makes you wonder if he should have done that, even if there wasn't a war.
>But my basic problem remains: I didn't identify >with the Tipton 3 because if I were Muslim, I >certainly wouldn't have travelled to the Middle >East for a wedding in the immediate wake of 9/11. >I mean, who would? Think about it.
I don't know why Daniel Pearl was in Pakistan at the time, either.
Posted by Daniel Zelter at June 1, 2006 12:14 PM
comment #2
Josh Martin says ...
"To be fair, maybe they reserved plane tickets before 9/11."
They entered Afghanistan by road, via Pakistan. (They were in Pakistan for a friend's wedding.) They didn't even decide to go to Afghanistan until after the bombs started dropping, supposedly out of some misguided idealism. The problem I have is we don't know enough about these guys to accept them as idealists or anything else -- they're mostly passive protagonists, which I suppose is inevitable given the story, but they're all pretty thinly drawn and there was ample room within the docudrama format to delve further into their individual personalities. What were their lives like back in England? What kind of families did they come from? All this is dispensed with in just a couple of scenes; Winterbottom and Whitecross seemed to be in way too much of a hurry to get to Guantanamo and I thought the dramatic aspect suffered from the lack of background.
Posted by Josh Martin at June 1, 2006 2:28 PM
comment #3
Ali says ...
Being British Pakistani, I can understand why those guys went to Pakistan during that time - in our culture it is important for the grooms family to go to the bride's home first - this starts the whole wedding routine/ritual.
There are many reasons why they couldn't delay their visit. Firstly, any delay to a wedding is treated as an insult to the girl and her family. Even if the reason is connected to 9/11, there would still be trouble. Although this is ridiculous, people in Pakistan don't receive the same news coverage we have in Britain or the US, and didn't feel the same danger.
Pakistan comes under 'South East Asia' and not the 'Middle East'. I can also understand why those guys thought it was OK to go to Afghanistan. In Pakistan, most people get the news and current affairs through word of mouth - this is extremely unreliable and is a mix of opinion and fantasy. For example when I visited in February 2002, everybody strongly believed that Bin Laden was working for the CIA and was in America, this was treated as fact and actual 'news'. The English newspapers are difficult to get hold of and are expensive. There's a very good chance that those guys couldn't read Urdu, very few of us in Britain can - therefore not able to read the Pakistani broadsheets.
The film didn't go into how when you're in Pakistan, it seems like you're cut off from the rest of the world. Especially for someone who comes from Britain and is practically a stranger in Pakistan. These guys were naïve in thinking they could do a cross country trek.
Posted by Ali at June 1, 2006 4:54 PM
comment #4
anon says ...
"Those conquered by Roman troops in the ancient days were humiliated and slaughtered by God-knows-how-many-thousands?"
Actually, the Romans would often make the conquered allies. Usually the worst just taxing them; they had to build an empire somehow.
Unless, we're talking about the hated Etruscans or the Carthaginians after the third war. Yes, they slaughtered them men and women and salted the earth.
Posted by anon at June 1, 2006 5:26 PM
comment #5
Duck of Death says ...
Wow...I've been reading this blog/site for years and these are the dumbest things I've seen Jeff write. Its sounds alot like "Why didn't all those people in New Orleans just load up their hummers and leave town?". The assumption that they have all the amenities, conveniences and money that Jeff has is staggering. Do they have CNN in Pakistan? Were they in bustling city w/ all its accoutrements or were they in some ramshackle berg w/ intemittent electricity? Incredibly provincial of Jeff. Previous post by Ali makes much more sense to me than what Jeff just wrote. Also, as pointed out above...waaaaaay off on how the Roman empire handled conquest. Unlike previous empires, the Romans didn't conquer and subjugate, they conquered and absorbed.
Posted by Duck of Death at June 1, 2006 6:40 PM
comment #6
Daniel Zelter says ...
Ali: " For example when I visited in February 2002, everybody strongly believed that Bin Laden was working for the CIA and was in America, this was treated as fact and actual 'news'."
Well he was 20 years ago. He probably still is, now.
Posted by Daniel Zelter at June 1, 2006 7:27 PM
comment #7
TK says ...
I believe the term for this is "blame the victim". I mean, yeah, sure, they were stupid, but it seems to me like a coupla years in Gitmo is a high price to pay for a moment of stupidity. I get that they weren't so much "in the wrong place at the wrong time" as "wandered semi-knowingly into the wrong place at the same time", but I'm not sure that should matter so much, given the massive imbalance between their misstep and the punishment meted out. I mean, I felt pretty bad for the protagonist in "Midnight Express" despite the massive (and criminal) stupidity he showed at the outset of that movie -- why should these three guys be afforded any less sympathy?
Posted by TK at June 1, 2006 8:50 PM
comment #8
Bob says ...
I honestly hadn't even considered this until now, but Wells brings up a solid point here: YES, apparently these men were innocent and as such what happened to them was wrong, criminal and shames me as an American. HOWEVER... what the HELL were they thinking!? Everyone and their mother KNEW America was going to turn Afghanistan into the lunar surface before the sun had set on the 11th, and they decided "hey, let's go TOWARD to massive military incursion"??
No, I'd never suggest that the punishment in ANY way fits the crime here, but stupid is still STUPID.
It also raises, for me at least, a potential larger problem with the film as a whole (and maybe part of the reason it's not more emotionally involving for Wells and probably others): If Winterbottom DOESN'T endeavor to offer a greater look into the psyche or history or rationale of these men, then it could indicate that he (and thusly his film) isn't really as interested in these men as human beings or their imprisonment as a human story, but merely as vessels through which he can attack Gitmo and the war in general. Setting aside whether or not I think I'd agree with said attacks, if this is the case it'd mean that this potentially moving and important story has been used to manufacture a work of one-note political point-scoring, and that'd be a shame.
Posted by Bob at June 1, 2006 10:35 PM
comment #9
Rich B. says ...
Duck of Death: "Its sounds alot like "Why didn't all those people in New Orleans just load up their hummers and leave town?". The assumption that they have all the amenities, conveniences and money that Jeff has is staggering."
A more accurate analogy for these 3 would be that they went on a trip TO New Orleans while Katrina was whipping around in the Gulf.
Posted by Rich B. at June 2, 2006 9:22 AM
comment #10
Duck of Death says ...
"A more accurate analogy for these 3 would be that they went on a trip TO New Orleans while Katrina was whipping around in the Gulf."
Again, the assumption is they had the same access to media that you do in your comfy home in Newport Beach.
Posted by Duck of Death at June 2, 2006 1:15 PM
comment #11
Ali says ...
For people living in the US and Britain, its quite difficult to understand the lack of reliable and up to date information available when in Pakistan. This is an important aspect in this situation.
I saw the film when it premiered on British TV - which was a while back, and I think that it was their first time visiting Pakistan - for British Pakistanis visiting for the first time, there's a lot of naivety.
Posted by Ali at June 2, 2006 1:27 PM
comment #12
Malik says ...
Jeff, Although I have been a regular reader of your column and often appreciate of what you write, yet sometimes you appear to be a complete 'dumb-ass" Judging from 'your problem' with 'Guantanamo'. You just do not know the sub-continent (India-Pak-Bangladesh etc.) and its culture. By being American, you think you have got the license to say on something even if you know nothing of. Jeff., you are only a film analyst, just focus on that and do not pass your comments specially based on factors beyond your knowledge or comprehension. It has long been established that like an average Joe-American, you simply do not know anything outside USA and Europe. Take my advice, consult somebody relevant in case you have a 'problem with a movie' related to situations, conditions, cultures of a country other than USA and those of Europe. It will save your ass from being exposed. A previous comment by Ali on your site must have educated you on why the movie characters were in Pak, their timing of being there etc. etc. Jeff, you may as well write to me to consult on such issues. I promise I will save your ass and make you look an expert on the sub-continent.
Posted by Malik at June 3, 2006 3:19 AM