By James Bowman on 6.30.06 @ 12:02AM
"Chilling out" in Afghanistan could get you in trouble.
Whatever may be the merits of Michael Winterbottom's Road to
Guantanamo, and they are several, it is undoubtedly an effort
to hinder and obstruct the Bush administration's war on terrorism.
We have to understand this at the outset because that effort's
success or lack of it will depend on the film's effectiveness at
disguising the fact -- and it seems very effective to me. What it
pretends to be about is the sad story of four young men of
Pakistani descent from Tipton, near Birmingham, England. It is
October of 2001, and Ruhel (Farhad Harun), Shafiq (Riz Ahmed), Asif
(Arfan Usman) and Monir (Waqar Siddiqui) travel together from
England to Pakistan because Asif's family has arranged a marriage
for him there, a common occurrence in the Anglo-Pakistani
community. On a whim, the four decide to take a side-trip to
Afghanistan just in time to be caught up in the civil war between
the Taliban and the Northern Alliance, aided by elements of the
U.S. armed forces. Monir disappears, never to be heard from again.
Ruhel, Shafiq and Asif are identified as Taliban fighters and
interned at Camp X-ray, Guantanamo.
There, they suffer hardships and harsh treatment amounting at
times to what some would describe as torture. This includes
isolation cells, loud noises and being in "stress positions"; there
are also stray punches and slaps and, in one case, where one of the
prisoners is supposed to be insane, a severe beating. At another
point, an American guard is seen desecrating a Koran. Of course, we
have only the men's own testimony that any of these things actually
happened. But the film is straightforwardly a conduit for that
testimony and makes no attempt to evaluate it or assess its
reliability. It shows them bravely and defiantly enduring it all,
always insisting on their innocence of any connections with the
Taliban or terrorism until, slightly more than two years later,
they are released for lack of any evidence that they were ever
terrorist sympathizers.
Mr. Winterbottom (Wonderland, In This World,
9 Songs) is a talented film-maker and, co-directing here
with Mat Whitecross, masks the propaganda beneath the compelling
human story told by cross-cutting interviews with the three
survivors, now inevitably "the Tipton three," and a running
dramatization of their experiences in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and
Cuba. Every now and then, too, we cut away to glimpses of the
larger war on terror in vignettes -- such as a speech by President
Bush on Guantanamo in which he says that "one thing we do know:
these are bad people" -- rendered deeply ironic by their context.
In fact, Mr. Bush's announcement must have included some such
unspoken qualification as "so far as we know" or "the overwhelming
majority" and an understanding that rounding up terrorist suspects
on the basis of the limited knowledge we are bound to have of
organized terror operations is pretty much bound to sweep in some
innocent along with the guilty.
That's if they are innocent. I must say that the three
men's story sounds a bit thin to me. They were in Pakistan for a
wedding and just decided one day to take a trip up to Afghanistan
where they were "basically just chilling out"? They could hardly
not have known that American warplanes were bombing the hell out of
the place at the time, yet they just wanted to play tourist? Then,
when they got scared and wanted to return to Pakistan, a sinister
and unknown bus driver took them in the opposite direction, toward
the front line. It all sounds just the tiniest bit fishy to me. But
say they were innocent. The fact doesn't tell us anything about the
hundreds of others caught in the same dragnet, let alone about
whether or not the acts of terrorism that must have been prevented
by their incarceration made it worthwhile to risk imprisoning the
odd innocent man.
The film ignores all such questions because its purpose is to
make as much as it can of the three innocents in order to suggest
that the other internees are as likely to be innocent as they are.
In other words, Mr. Winterbottom wants to say not just that it's
unfortunate that the men were imprisoned at Guantanamo, or even
that it was wrong for America, not knowing of their innocence, to
imprison them. He means that it is wrong for America to imprison
anyone, guilty or innocent, at Guantanamo -- which just happens to
be the view of the increasingly vocal anti-war and anti-Bush left.
Those who recognize that we are at war, and that there are
dedicated terrorists looking for opportunities to kill innocent
Americans, are likely to think differently. If we have good reasons
for suspecting certain foreigners of plotting murder and mayhem
against us, on what moral or prudential grounds are we told that we
must do nothing but wait until they have killed more Americans --
by which time they will presumably have blown themselves up
anyway?
At the critics' screening I attended in Washington, there were
"peace" activists openly recruiting demonstrators against the
Guantanamo prisons. Their presence only confirmed my impression
that The Road to Guantanamo never bothered to make any
pretense of being anything but propaganda. Like Leni Riefenstahl's
Triumph of the Will -- or Al Gore's An Inconvenient
Truth or Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 -- it
depends on the assumption that anyone who watches it will already
be in sympathy with its aims. And the demographics of movie-going
suggest that the assumption is pretty much correct. No need, then,
to apologize for their blatant partisanship or make any attempt to
be judicious or even-handed with their material. The Road to
Guantanamois highly watchable, as we would expect from Mr.
Winterbottom, and an absorbing tale if it were fictional. As it is,
however, we cannot but be aware that the real-life subjects have an
agenda, as does the film itself, which subtly alters our response
to a human story that would otherwise be enthralling.
topics:
Pakistan