Tenderness or Terror?

Two films explore the ethos of revolutionary violence
film review by Jon Reinsch

The Terrorist
Egyptian Theater March 17-23

A Moment of Innocence
Varsity Theater March 31 - April 6

Confronted by injustice and oppression, how do you respond? Two excellent upcoming films ask this question. Both India's The Terrorist and Iran's A Moment of Innocence lead up to a fateful decision.

The Terrorist played the Seattle International Film Festival last year, and it's gratifying to see this refined yet visceral film return. The Terrorist is driven more by images than dialog--not surprising as it is cinematographer Santosh Sivan's first feature. And its protagonist is remarkably laconic. Nevertheless, we always seem close to her; we hear every pant, every "hmmm" she utters.

Malli is a 19-year old guerrilla for an unnamed movement, against an unnamed government. We sense that her cause is just--though it's methods are ruthless. The rebel leader gives us the creeps, precisely because he is never on screen--only heard.

Malli volunteers as a suicide-bomber. Her motives are clear: she has lost everyone she loves to the struggle. To get to the site of her assignment, she travels through forest and river, on a journey of the spirit as well as the body. Along the way she encounters several guides: some talkative and deceptively silly. But the one who makes the strongest impression is a comatose old woman.

If you don't want critical plot elements revealed to you, then skip ahead to the next section! Two thirds of the way through the film, Malli learns something about herself that brings on doubts about her mission: she's pregnant. At the same time, she's overwhelmed by manifestations of life--birds in trees, children laughing--that seemed remote in her previous existence. Everywhere she looks she sees herself reflected--in mirrors, in water, even in someone's eye--as she tries to choose which dreams to make into reality.

It's a rare film that takes such a multifaceted view of a woman who is both selfless hero and indoctrinated pawn. It's horrifying to imagine what Hollywood would do with a story like this. The glamorous heroine would probably figure out how to carry out her mission and have her baby too.

But of course, no Hollywood product would have a dark-skinned third-world heroine wearing a belt of explosives. "Terrorists" are unadulterated villains in our society. (Violence itself is clearly not the issue; veterans of bombing missions against third-world countries apparently make fine Presidential candidates.)

If you allow yourself to get inside her head, you'll feel the full range of her dilemma. Does part of you want her to hit the switch?

78-minute masterpiece

Mohsen Makhmalbaf is one director with personal experience of violent resistance. Back in the '70's, he was involved in the struggle against the Shah, and was jailed for stabbing a policeman. After the revolution, he was released, and became a filmmaker. Years later the cop he had injured showed up for a casting call. Makhmalbaf decided to make a movie looking back to their first meeting long ago.

In A Moment of Innocence we have a film within a film. Makhmalbaf and the ex-policeman cast boys as their younger selves, and set out to coach the actors in their roles. We thus view the incident from four different perspectives: the two men and their young surrogates. It's a playful yet profound approach, with missed and accidental connections.

Both men encounter resistance from their pupils. The ex-cop, still filled with regret over his hesitation in giving a girl a flower, has to endure the boy's interrogation: "How can you fall in love on duty at some crossroads?...You are a rascal!" When the boy performs the flower-giving too quickly, the ex-cop objects "Not like that. If I'd given her the flower that quickly, I wouldn't have wasted 20 years!"

Makhmalbaf fares no better. His surrogate, given a false knife, asks "Isn't there another way to save mankind?" The exasperated director responds "Is that how the youth of today talk?"

In a wonderful segment , Makhmalbaf drives his pupil around town. The camera, from outside the car, stays on the kid's face. But as the car moves, we see reflections of trees, etc. on the windshield. It's like a double-exposure. A character later tells us "While there are trees there is life."

Nearly every shot involves two people. The young Makhmalbaf and his sweetheart, in a head-on tracking shot, plan their future: "Can two people who want to save mankind marry?" "Of course... I'll love my children and that's good practice for loving other people. It'll help me to look after mankind." As the men look back, these young people look forward.

The film will play on a double bill with Makhmalbaf's latest, The Silence. This rich but puzzling film is closer in style to the director's Gabbeh. Due to censorship in Iran, Makhmalbaf made The Silence in Tajikistan. Although it's not overtly political, there is a scene in which a man off-camera harasses girls without head scarves.

One must avoid overpraising films, but A Moment of Innocence is a 78-minute masterpiece. No one is making more vibrant, moving films today than the Iranians. A few months back I told you about  Leila--but you didn't see it, did you? Here's your chance to redeem yourself--and maybe save mankind too.

The Terrorist plays the Egyptian March 17-23. A Moment of Innocence and The Silence play the Varsity March 31--April 6.

Popcorn, a Movie... and Censorship?

"G," "R," "NC-17."

These are some of the film ratings appearing on virtually every Hollywood film. Do they constitute a form of censorship by the Motion Picture Association of American (MPAA)? Do they cast a chill on filmmakers that leads to prior restraint?

Wal-Mart, Blockbuster Video, K-Mart, some theater chains and other cynosures of artistic merit won't accept NC-17 titles. Thus they use the ratings to censor what people can buy and see.

The January-February issue of The Humanist points out that every film coming out of Hollywood is vetted by a group of 8 to 12 anonymous parents in Encino, CA. These parents constitute the MPAA's film ratings board. "Between eight and thirteen of these individuals, whose views are supposed to reflect those of the average American parent (whatever that means)" view the films, discuss them, and then dictate the rating.

"However, there is no requirement that guarantees board members are credentialed experts in the process and effects of mass communication. Art degrees and artistic skill aren't required, and nonparents are not represented at all," The Humanist points out.

The article, by Chris Roth of the Milwaukee chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, discusses ramifications of the ratings process, and deconstructs several myths about the ratings, such as "The purpose of the rating system is to provide information to adult moviegoers," or that an "R" rating does not change a film.

Film buffs and anyone concerned about censorship will want to read this article.

--Renee Kjartan